S. K. Kaul, J. - (1.) THESE two revisions arise out of same transaction and are directed against same judgment. There were heard together and shall be disposed of by one judgment. Both these revisionists have come up to this Court challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had dismissed their appeals and had confirmed their sentence and conviction awarded to them by the Magistrate who had sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each or in default to undergo 15 days' R.I. under section 447 I.P.C. It is not disputed in this case that these two revisionists are employees in the Ordnance Clothing Factory at Shahjahanpur. There is a workers Union named as Pratiraksha Karmchari Union, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, which was registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926. The revisionist Sridhar Gupta is General Secretary of the aforesaid Union. On 16th July, 1970, Sridhar Gupta served a notice on General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, as follows :- "Subject-HUNGER STRIKE. Respected Sir, In pursuance of the decision of our Executive Committee of our Union, I am directed to inform you that as a protest against wrongful removal from ser vice of our Vice-President Sri Rasool Bux, the Union Official will launch 48 hours hunger strike infront of the Gate w.e. 4-8-1970 from 4.30p.m. Submitted for your information and be treated as notice also. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd. Sridhar Gupta (General Secretary)."
(2.) THE prosecution story now reads in this way that Sri S. R. Kalia, Deputy Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, informed the General Secretary on 3rd August, 1970, that per-mission for launching hunger strike in front of the factory gate in the com-pound of the employees club and holding meetings with the use of the loud speaker in the same connection would not be granted. Copies of this letter were sent to the district authorities as well. It appears that the Union workers did not pay any heed and, as such, a tent was pitched on 4th August, 1970, inside the factory premises. A meeting was organised at 4 p.m. and thereafter not only by means of loud speakers speeches were delivered against the conduct of the higher authorities of the aforesaid factory, but Sridhar, Gupta also sat on hunger strike as proposed. On 4th August Sri Malhotra, Supervisor 'A' grade gave confidential report to Sri Kalia drawing his attention to the aforesaid acts being done by the office bearers of the Union and other employees and thereupon Sri Kalia drafted a notice on 4th August, 1970, Ext. Ka-4 which was addressed to the General Secretary, namely, Sridhar Gupta. By means of this letter, the attention of the General Secretary was drawn to the fact that the permission had not been accorded for the acts being committed and that their occupation was not only unauthorised but they were directed to vacate the possession which they had unauthorisedly taken. This letter, according to the prosecution, was handed over to Bahu Ram for delivery, but the same was refused by the General Secretary. On 5th August, 1970, another letter on similar lines had been drafted by Sri Kalia and this was handed over to Madho Singh for delivery, but once again this letter was not received. On the basis of the report sent by Sri Kalia, the head constable Rajpal Singh posted at P.S. Sadar Bazar scribed F.I.R. Ext. Ka-6 on the basis of Exts. Ka-2, Ka-4 and Ka-5 (Ka-5 being the letter dated 5th August, 1970). The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Hari Nandan Singh. He went to the spot, prepared a site-plan and after completing investigation in the usual manner, he submitted a charge-sheet on the basis of which the present two revisionists along with other members were asked to stand their trial under section 447 I.P.C. I am concerned with the case of other persons who were initially charge-sheeted because they were acquitted by the Magistrate and no appeal against their acquittal was preferred. The defence of Sridhar Gupta was that he went on hunger-strike which was a legitimate object of the Union as a protest for the illegal termination of services of the Vice-President of the Union. He denied other allegations of the prosecution and alleged false implication on account of enmity, primarily on account of the fact that he was an office bearer of the Union. Maya Prakash admitted that he addressed the meeting, but asserted that no offence was committed by him and he too was implicated as he used to take active part in the Union activities. He denied other allegations. The Magistrate concerned, on an appraisement of the evidence, found that the charge was fully made out as against these two revisionists and, as such, he sentenced and convicted them as above. Both these accused-revisionists went up in appeal, but remained unsuceessful and it is in this manner that the two revisions were preferred to this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists at length. In my view, both these revisions should be allowed. Before dealing with the facts of the case, I would like to mention that according to section 15 (d) of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, the objects on which general funds could be spent were as follows : "The general funds of a registered Trade Union shall not be spent on any other objects than the following, namely- (d) the conduct of trade disputes on behalf of Trade Union or any member thereof ;" Section 441 I.P.C. after amendment in this State, the amendment being Criminal Laws (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1961 (XXXI of 1961) reads as follows :- "441. Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of an-other with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having unlawfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into forcre of the Criminal Laws (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property, or its possession, or use when called upon to do so by i that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'." ;