Patna High Court
Gudri Chaudhry vs Emperor on 3 November, 1931
Equivalent citations: 139IND. CAS.88, AIR 1932 PATNA 213
JUDGMENT Wort, J.
1. The petitioner who has been bound over under Section 108 of the Criminal Prccsdure Code, to execute a bond for Rs. 500 with two sureties of Rs. 200 each to be of good behaviour for one year is stated to have sang on a certain occasion, the date of which is immaterial, a seditious song. The fact that it was seditious is not contested by the learned Advocate who appears on his behalf beforelme. The main, contention before me is that the words in Section 108 "disseminates or attempts to disseminate" are such as to indicate that the case does not come under the purview of that section unless there is something in the evidence to show that the tot complained of is a habit on the part pf the person who is bound over and reference is made in that behalf to the case of Emperor v. Chiranji Lal 114 Ind. Cas. 48 : 50 A. 854 : A.I.R. 1928 All. 344 : 26 A.L.J. 813 : 30 Cr. L.J. 216. The learned Judge who decided that case seems to consider that had it been sufficient in the mind of the Legislature that one such act would come within the mischief of the section the words which would have been used would have been 'has disseminated or attempted to disseminate" and not "disseminates or attempts to disseminate". With great respect I do not agree with the learned Judge for the simple reason that the argument which is used in the course of his judgment is one which is equally in favour of the accused as it is in favour of the prosecution. If the words "has disseminated or attempted to disseminate" had been used it would be difficult to meet the argument that the group of sections, of which Section 1118 is one, were intended to avoid the mischief of something in the nature of a habit; and how could it be said that a person who had performed a single act was in the habit of performing that act. It is quite clear in my judgment that the Legislature has used the words "disseminates or attempts to disseminate" as not referring to the number of acts performed but rather having reference to whether the evidence showed that there was some thing to show that a repetition of the offence was probable. This of course depends on the facts of each case. In this cage, however, the petitioner has stated, and it does not seem to be denied, that he was unaware that this song had been proscribed and he was willing to give an undertaking at the appellate stage of the case. The learned Advocate who appears on his behalf now undertakes not to repeat the offence and in those circumstances and on those conditions the order which has been passed against him under Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, will be set aside.