The substance of the allegations made against the appellants was this The first appellant exhorted the other members of the P.A.C. to take arms as army had set out from Kanpur to take over the charge of Fatehpur Armed Reserve center on the orders of the State Government.
In the light of the aforesaid sentencing process adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court it would number have been necessary for the appellants to approach this Court but we understand that the effort was to get rid of the stigma of companyviction for helping the appellants to have the service benefits unaffected.
The provisions under which appellants were companyvicted are the following Section 148, Section 395, Section 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code Section 6 b and Section 6 c of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Police Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922.
An endeavour was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to show that the trial Court was companyrect and the High Court was wrong in entering a companyviction against the appellants under the remaining Sections of offences.
On the allegation of a revolt having been companymitted by members of the P.A.C. at Fatehpur proceedings have been initiated against the appellants departmentally as well as before the criminal Court for various offences.
Upon the said exhortation all the appellants and some other members of the Constabulary broke open the armoury and took out arms and ammunitions therefrom and pitched them at various places to meet the oncoming army.
Though the trial Court acquitted all the appellants a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, on an appeal filed by the State, set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted all of them under different provisions, but the sentence was limited to the period of imprisonment which each of the appellants had already undergone.
