1. This being a revision petition I propose to say very little. The lower Courts have both found that the accused instigated railway workers in the event of a strike to lie on the railway line. The accused's version was that he told them to lie along the line. Not only the prosecution evidence of persons knowing Hindustani who heard his speech and the shorthand notes made on the spot of the translation into Tamil, show that he told his hearers to lie on the line but the evidence of his own witnesses does not support his own version.
2. However it is not the business of this Court to discuss findings of fact for which there is evidence in revision. As regards the legal question, it is urged that the strike was only a contingent matter and therefore no offence was committed. The illustration to Section 117, I.P.C. shows that an instigation to attack a procession which is going to be held is an offence under the section. It is immaterial therefore whether the accused was, as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, urging an immediate strike and instigating the workers to lie across the line or was merely instigating their doing so in case of a strike which he advised if the retrenchment proposals, which were temporarily held up, were carried out. The sentence which was reduced by the appellate Court cannot be said to be excessive. The petition fails and is dismissed.