1. This revision case was admitted because neither the trial Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge in appeal indicated in any way the nature of the documents that were the subject of the charge and it was therefore impossible to judge whether the sentence imposed was reasonable or otherwise. After going through the various exhibits it is clear that literature found in the possession of the petitioner was of a particularly virulent nature, especially Ex. C-1. It is argued that as only mere possession has been proved and there was no indication that the petitioner owned that literature or disseminated seditious views, the sentence is excessive. Possession simpliciter is however liable to a heavy sentence under the Defence of India Rules and the manuscript Ex. D indicates that the literature found was intended to be disseminated. The sentence which has been considered reasonable by tho two Courts below cannot, therefore, in any view of the matter be deemed to be excessive. I find no cause for interference.
2. I have been asked to take into account the changed attitude of the communist party, of which the petitioner was a member, towards the Government and the Government's attitude to the communist party. That seems to me, however, a matter for the consideration of the executive rather than of the Court. The petition is dismissed.