G.M. Lodha, J.
1. Accused Jarnail Singh and Bachan Singh claimed to be political workers of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). According to them they have been raising their voice against illegal and arbitrary excess of police authorities and, therefore, they have incurred annoyance of the Police Officers. The case of the accused is that false cases are concocted by the police and they have not been found guilty so far in any of the cases.
2. The present one is a case where accused have been convicted Under Section 189. IPC The prosecution case which has been proved against them is that, on 13-12-1971 at about 10.15 A. M. when Shri Prakash Sardana, Police, Officer, was discharging his duties at the Police Station, Govindgarh in District Alwar, these accused along with a few others came in the Police Station. Jarnail Singh then asked the Police Officers why they have arrested their party workers Satyapal, Kishanchand and Hansa. Saying, so, they demanded their release and threatened the Police Officers with serious consequences. A tall claim was made by workers that they have taken to task many Thanedars who have been thrown out from the Police Station to other places. They said that they care a fig for the Government and they can shake any Government.
3. The accused then started crying loudly and threatening the police, warned them that they would not allow the police to move outside. When Prakash Sardana, Police Officer, asked to talk sense and peacefully, the accused continued to cry and threaten the police and ultimately gave a challenge and threatened that if their party workers who were under arrest are not released, then the police officers will have to face dire consequences as soon as they came out of the Thana. Saying so, accused came out and started shouting slogans against the police.
4. Both the lower Courts have recorded a finding of guilt against the accused Under Section 189, IPC Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused has argued that no case was made out because the accused were only demanding release of their workers. As citizens of India they have got a right to demand justice from all including Executive Officers. A false case was registered against these party workers whose release was being demanded by Jarnail Singh and other workers of the party. A copy of the challan along with the affidavit of Hariram who claims to be worker of Communist Party of India (Marxist) was placed before this Court. According to this challan copy, Police case against those accused was that they have stolen Pullas from the fields.
5. Mr. Sharma's contention based on the contents of affidavit of Shri Hariram is that landless tillers were agitating about their rights for getting the agricultural land in Tehsil Laxmangarh but the Government was bent upon allotting the land to other persons. It was thus controversy which was of socio-economic nature as the political workers claimed that the land should be given to the tillers and landless and due to this workers were arrested in false cases. According to the affidavit of Mr. Hariram, this confrontation in Alwar is known as 'Dollary Kand' where several political workers were arrested on different pretexts.
6. It was in these circumstances, argued Mr. Sharma, that the present accused Jarnail Singh and Bachan Singh told the police officers not to lodge such false cases against political workers demanding justice and fair play and claimed their release. This tantamounts to no offence because every citizen has got a right to raise his voice against highhandedness of the police and the executive excesses which happened in the present case, argued Mr. Sharma.
7. Mr. Mathur, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the contention of Mr. Sharma. According to him, no citizen can be allowed to take law in his own hand. A political worker cannot claim any impunity nor he can expect that a licence would be given to obstruct the public servants and threaten them of injury while they are discharging their duties. Mr. Mathur submitted that affidavit filed by Mr. Hariram, political worker, along with the challan and the documents now is no evidence in this case and cannot be acted upon in order to decide the guilt and/or innocence of the accused. According to Mr. Mathur it has been proved by overwhelming evidence beyond reasonable doubt that,the accused persons obstructed the police officers in the discharge of their duties and threatened them with injury in case their party workers are not released. This is enough for conviction Under Section 189, I. P.C. argued Mr. Mathur.
8. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and given a very serious and thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Undoubtedly the allegations have been proved and it has been established on record that these accused persons entered the police station and told the police officers that they should release their party workers, failing which they would have to face dire consequences. It has also been proved that the language which they have used and the challenges which they made were intended to threaten the police officers for releasing the accused who were their party workers and failing that to be prepared for facing consequences of injury when they came out of the police station. The threat to cause injury is, therefore, proved and all ingredients of the offence Under Section 189, IPC are fully established,
9. So far as the political overtone of the case is concerned, they are foreign to this Court and need not be considered at all, because it is the facts of the case which taken together tantamount to offence or not and which is the only consideration of the Court.
10. A citizen of India is a citizen whether he is a political worker or otherwise. A political worker cannot claim any impunity in the eye of law to commit any offence however good the motive may be. The law of the land is to be obeyed and respected by all citizens irrespective of their profession, vocation, and status and political thinking. Before the Majesty of Law, no one is either exempted from its rigour nor amenable more seriously. They are all equal. In holding so, I am in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Mathur that even though the petitioners may have been the party workers of a particular political party, and even though a case against their co-party workers might be false or not, they had no business to threaten them with injury and on that threat to demand their release.
11. If the case would have been limited to raising of slogans or demanding release, then probably case Under Section 189, IPC would not be fully made out. In the instant case the facts which have been rightly believed by the two courts and with which I have no reason to disagree are that the accused threatened the police officers with injury. That being so, I have got no hesitation in confirming the conviction and rejecting the revision application, in so far as the merits of the case are concerned.
12. However, the question of sentence is a matter in which Court can take all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration. The submission of Mr. Sharma which has no relevance so far as the question of finding of guilt is concerned has got relevancy in the matter of sentence. It may be that these workers who were aggrieved by their party workers' arrest, were over-enthusiastic and, therefore, they exceeded the normal rights which the citizens have under the Constitution, The facts of the case certainly persuade me to take more humanitarian view so far as the sentence,' of the accused are concerned.
13. It is not in dispute that these accused were party workers and their co-party workers were arrested in some cases. It would not be proper for me to make any comment about the case in which other, workers were arrested and Mr. Mathur is correct that the affidavit of Hariram and the copy of the challan cannot be taken note of for the purposes of recording finding of acquittal. All the same, from the record of the case and the judgment of both the Courts, it is patent that committing of the offence by the accused was an act of misguided, over-enthusiastic, ill-advised outburst. In this view of the matter, while confirming the conviction of the accused, I am of the opinion that a lenient and liberal view should be taken in the matter of sentence. The accused have faced the trial since 1973 and they have already remained in Jail after conviction for 7 days. They were arrested and sent to Jail on 25-6-1981. The sentence of six months awarded to the accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case needs reduction. The ends of justice would be met by reducing sentence to the one already undergone,
14. The result is that the revision application is partially accepted. So far as the conviction of the accused is concerned, it is upheld. The sentence awarded by the lower Courts is reduced to that already undergone. The sentence of fine is also set aside. The accused Jarnail Singh and Bachan Singh are in Jail. They would be released forthwith if they are not, required in any other case.