M.C.DESAI,J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Basti, convicting the appellant under Sec. 124 -A, I.P.C., and sentencing him to imprisonment for three years. On 29 -5 -1954, he delivered a speech to an audience of about 200 persons, mostly villagers. The gist of his speech was this : Mothers and sisters were obliged to sell their honour in order to support themselves. Labourers were obliged to beg. Thousands of cultivators and labourers were famishing for want of food. School fees and railway fares were increased two -times and four -times so that cultivators may not remain happy. In the Congress regime thousands of Sitas were being abducted and women were turning into prostitutes for the sake of food and clothing. Taxes were being imposed on deaths and births. Cultivators and labourers blood was being sucked through foreign capitalists. Labourers of U.P. had now organized themselves. Now they will not beg for pity but will take up cudgels and surround the ministry and warn it that if it did not concede their demands it would be overthrown. If it was thought desirable that cultivators and labourers should rule the country, every young person must learn the use of swords, guns, pistols, batons and spirit bottles, because without a fight the present Government would not surrender. Governments have not been overthrown without the use of batons. Cultivators and labourers should form associations and raise an army. If they wanted a Government like the Chinese Government, they should raise an army of volunteers and train them in the use of guns and pistols. Taimurlung, Aurangzeb, Slier Shah and other tyrants did not divide the country but Jawaharlal Nehru turned out to be such a big traitor that he divided the country into two parts.
(2.) THE appellant admitted having made the speech but denied some of the words. He also challenged the constitutionality of Section 124 -A, I.P.C., pleading that its provisions have become void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. The learned Sessions Judge found that the speech was made by the appellant and that Section 124 -A imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech in the interests of public order and security of the State. Accordingly he convicted the appellant. The connected Government Appeal No. 498 of 1955 is by the State from an order of an Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent, Ishaq Ilmi, of the offence of Sec. 153(A), I.P.C.; the questions that arise in it are whether the speech, made by the respondent comes within the purview of Sec. 153(A) and whether Sec. 153(A) has become void under Art. 13. The connected Appeal No. 76 of 1955 is by Ishaq Ilmi from the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence of Sec. 124 -A; one of his contentions is that Section 124 -A, has become void under Art. 13. The connected revision No. 564 of 1955 is by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon Ishaq Ilmi for the offence of Sec. 124 -A. The connected Criminal Misc. No. 2371 of 1956 is an application by Paras Nath Tripathi, who has been arrested for the offence of Section 124 -A, for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that Section 124 -A has become void.
(3.) THE effect of the provisions of Arts. 13 and 19(1)(a) and (2) is that all the laws in force on 25 -1 -1950, which were inconsistent with the freedom of speech and expression are vaid, except those which imposed reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom in the interests of the security of the State, public order etc. Section 124 -A, I.P.C., punishes any person who by words, spoken or written, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law. Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, vide Explanation 1. Explanation 2 lays down that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute an offence under the section. Similarly Explanation 3 lays down that comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred etc., do not constitute an offence. ;