SURAJ MAL MATHURA PRASAD DEORIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Ram and Sukhdeo Prasad, the applicants in this criminal revision; were convicted by a first class Magistrate of Bareilly for an offence under Sec 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance 1960 and were sentenced to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In appeal the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Bareilly maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to three month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations are as follows : By a notification published in the Gazette Extraordinary of July 8, 1960, the Central Government, acting under the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance 1960, prohibited strikes in various essential services, including "any railway service", and as a result, any person who instigated or incited others to take part in this kind of strike became liable to punishment under Section 5 of the Ordinance.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has tried to make out that they were prejudiced by the defective nature of their examination under Section 342, Cri.P.C. but on perusing the record I can see no substance in this suggestion. The basic prosecution allegations were put to the accused on 18.7.1960, when they were first examined, and were totally denied by Sukhdeo Prasad while Babu Ram declined to make any statement at all. Then on 2.8.1960, after the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had been recorded, the accused were asked if they had anything further to say and gave the same replies as before. I can see no reason to think that they were in any doubt as to the precise nature of the charge which they had to meet, and I am not prepared to hold that the omission on the part of the Magistrate to put more detailed questions to them has resulted in any prejudice whatsoever.