Skip to content


Kishori Lal Vs. Rex - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Raj15; 1950CriLJ499
AppellantKishori Lal
RespondentRex
Cases ReferredAbdul Hafiz v. Emperor A.I.R.
Excerpt:
.....by the legislature in the definition of working journalist in the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior act i.e. industrial disputes act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. the expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. if a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. however, the court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the..........month's simple imprisonment. the case of the prosecution was that on s, search being made of the house of the applicant a number of 'unauthorized news, sheets' were re. covered from his possession, and had been kept by him for purposes of distribution.2. the first point taken up in revision before the court is that the documents in question are no 'news-sheets' within the meaning of section s (6) of the act which lays down that 'news-sheet' means any document.....containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in sub-section (1) of section 4. the matter des-oribea in b. 4 (1)(d)is to bring into hatred or contempt hia majesty oe the government established by law in british india or the administration of justice in british india or any class or section of his.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. The applicant stands convicted Under Section 18(1) of Central Act, xxin [28] of 1931 and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that on s, search being made of the house of the applicant a number of 'unauthorized news, sheets' were re. covered from his possession, and had been kept by him for purposes of distribution.

2. The first point taken up in revision before the Court is that the documents in question are no 'news-sheets' within the meaning of Section S (6) of the Act which lays down that 'news-sheet' means any document.....containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The matter des-oribea in B. 4 (1)(d)

is to bring into hatred or contempt Hia Majesty oe the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice In British India or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government.

3. The contents of the documents have been read out in Court, and certainly offend against the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act. The contents in question have been described in the judgments of the trial Court and the Court below in full and need not be reiterated. The counsel for the applicant himself ultimately had to admit that the contents of the 'news-sheets' were unfortunately not very happily worded. :

4. The second point pressed by the counsel for the applicant in revision before the Court is that since the search of the house of the applicant was made without obtaining a warrant as required Under Section 16 (2) of the Act no adverse inference whatsoever be drawn against the appli-oant. He has in thia connection drawn my attention to the ruling reported in Nrisingha Chandra v. Emperor A.I.R. (20) 1933 oal. 792: 96 Cr.L.J. 84. No doubt, the ruling lays down that

search and seizure without a search-warrant are illegal and that being eo, a Magistrate cannot pass a forfeiture order on report of such search.

This, however, does not necessarily mean that a Magistrate also cannot pass an order of conviction on report of such search. The counsel for the prosecution has drawn my attention in tbis connection to the ruling reported in Abdul Hafiz v. Emperor A.I.R. (13) 1926 ALL. 188 : 27 Cr.L.J. 265, wherein it has been held as below:

Where an Excise Inspector, without obtaining a search warrant and without recording any reasons, as required by Section 53, searched the house of the accused and found therein an ounce of cocaine without license:

Held, that although the search was illegal, the oon-viotion of the aooused under section 60 (a) was not illegal.

5. In the present case the two Courts below have relied on the evidence of the two search witnesses implicitly. There is nothing on the record of the Court below for me to hold otherwise. The applicant, in the circumstances, has rightly been convicted Under Section 18 (1) of Central Act, XXIII [23] of 1931, and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The sentence certainly is by no means excessive and, if at all, errs a little on the side of leniency.

6. The application in revision accordingly is dismissed: the applicant is on bail and roust surrender to his bail-bond before the trial Court forthwith to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //