Skip to content


In Re: B. Sriniwasa Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad687
AppellantIn Re: B. Sriniwasa Rao
Excerpt:
- .....speeches at two public meetings held on 29th september and 15th october last. he was charged under rule 38, clause (5), defence of india rules, and besides alleging some distortions in the transcriptions, he contended that the speeches were not 'prejudicial acts' as denned in rule 34, clause (6). the magistrate held otherwise and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each speech, directing the sentences to run concurrently, the accuracy of the transcriptions of the speeches which were taken down in shorthand by trained sub-inspectors was not seriously disputed, and apart from other objectionable matters the appellant exhorted the audience in both the speeches to desist from enlisting in the army or assisting the prosecution of the war in any.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The appellant was the Secretary of the Madras Socialist Party and he delivered two speeches at two public meetings held on 29th September and 15th October last. He was charged under Rule 38, Clause (5), Defence of India Rules, and besides alleging some distortions in the transcriptions, he contended that the speeches were not 'prejudicial acts' as denned in Rule 34, Clause (6). The Magistrate held otherwise and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each speech, directing the sentences to run concurrently, The accuracy of the transcriptions of the speeches which were taken down in shorthand by trained Sub-Inspectors was not seriously disputed, and apart from other objectionable matters the appellant exhorted the audience in both the speeches to desist from enlisting in the army or assisting the prosecution of the war in any manner. He had been warned by the Commissioner of Police against carrying on such propaganda and the speeches were intended to prejudice the recruiting of persons for services in the army and influence the conduct or attitude of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. They were thus prejudicial acts as defined in Sub-clause (d) and (k) of Rule 34, Clause (6) and the conviction under Section 38, Clause (5) is correct. It is therefore confirmed, and in the absence of any undertaking not to repeat the offence, the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The sentence too is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.


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