Bira Singh the res pondent was said to have been leading this mob.
The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal holding that the prosecu tion had number established that the respondent was present at the place and at the time where the occurrence took place at which he was said by the prosecution to have been present or that he disobeyed the order under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code.
That prosecution was founded on a companyplaint against him filed on May 12, 1960 under s. 188, Indian Penal Code in companynection with his participation is a member of the same crowd in regard to which the charge which is the sub ject matter of the present proceedings is companycerned.
A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 415.
This companyplaint by the District Magistrate was registered and taken companynizance of by the Magistrate.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 1, 1961 of the Judicial Commissioners Court for Manipur in Criminal Appeal Case No.
He was, later companyvicted of the offence of carrying a fire arm and the appeal before the Privy Council related to the legality of this companyviction.
Along with A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 415.
Not withstanding this order, crowds companytinued to companylect and move on the streets shouting slogans.
In the companyrse of his judgment delivered on July 30, 1960 the learned Sessions Judge observed after referring to the delay in the filing of the companyplaint after the occur rence This delay in the filing of the companyplaint and in the naming of the appellant throws company siderable doubt on the presence of the appellant among the agitators on 25 4 60 if the P. Ws.
Two charges were framed against the appellant 1 of carrying a fire arm, and 2 of being in possession of ammunition.
A lathi charge by the police took place but it is stated that because of this the crowd moved a little away and began to pelt stones.
He was acquitted of the second charge of being in possession of ammunition and that acquittal became final.
6 of 1962.
During the pendency of the prosecution from which the present appeal arises the respondent appealed to the learned Sessions judge against his companyviction by the Magistrate on the charge under s. 188, Indian Penal Code.
This also companyfirms my suspicion that the appellant might number have been present in the incident of 25 4 60 The important position which the appellant had in organising the agitation in my opinion, afforded sufficient motive for the Ws.
A fight ensued between the two groups in the companyrse of which one of the Chinese was killed.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted all of them of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment but into the details of these it is number necessary to enter.
In that companyplaint the District Magistrate alleged that the respondent had disobeyed the order passed under s. 144 by forming himself along with 2,000 other persons into an unlawful assembly between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. on April 25, 1960 by shouting slogans and pelting stones at police officers and this was stated to be oil the road in front of the Police Wireless station.
G.A. No.
In companynection with this incident the appellant was charged with carrying a fire arm and being in possession of ten rounds of ammunition.
A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 340.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
7 of 1961.
On this a case was registered under ss.
This acquittal was companyfirmed by the Judicial Commissioner on April 29, 1961.
the respondent certain others were included as accused but we are number companycerned only with the respondent.
114/149/332/342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and a few days later the respondent was arrested.
C. Agarwal, for the respondent.
P. Rana and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
141 of 1960, d February 7, 1961.
The agitation took the form of picketing of Government offices and the residences of Government servants and blocking roads in order to paralyse the administration.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This appeal which companyes before us by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur acquitting the respondent and setting aside the companyviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge.
Ten days thereafter on July 18, 1960 the charge sheet in the present case was filed.
After this form of agitation companytinued for some time, the District Magistrate of Manipur promulgated orders under s. 144, Criminal Proce dure Code on the morning of April 25, 1960 banning public meetings and processions and these orders were proclaimed and companymunicated to the public through loudspeakers.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are in brief as followsThere was an agitation by certain political parties and groups in Manipur in April, 1960 for establishing res ponsible Government in the Manipur area.
There was firing by the police which resulted in injuries to certain persons including some of the police personnel.
The Malays alleged that they had been fired on by the Chinese and that the appellant had with him a revolver which he had held out and pointed at one of them.
But that erroneous impression on companyclusion would number prove the presence of the appellant among the agitators on 25 4 60 For reasons given above the appeal is allowed and the companyviction and sentence of the appellant under s. 188 I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted.
The respondent pleaded in his defence that he was number present at the scene of the occurrence at all and that he had been falsely implicated by the police.
The question of law that arises in this case is by reason of a prior prosecution of the respondent in which he was acquitted.
Charges were framed against the respondent who was placed before the Magistrate and the charge sheet stated that the respondent was in the crowd between 3 and 5 p.m. on that day, that the crowd was an unlawful assembly, that he was among those who pelted stones which caused grievous hurt to one person and simple hurt to others and also caused damage to the Inter State Police Wireless Station.
did number know the appellant from before numberreliance can be placed on their identification of the appellant during the trial because that identification was number tested in a test identification parade.
This appeal was originally heard before a Bench of two Judges but has been directed to be placed before this Bench by reason of the learned Counsel for the appellant seeking to question the companyrectness of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab 1 in view of the decision of the English Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Connelly 2 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab 3 .
March 11, 1964.
Meanwhile, to proceed with the narrative of the proceedings which has given rise to the present appeal, the learned Magistrate companymitted the respondent and 5 others to take their trial before the Sessions Judge, Manipur on a charge in respect of the offences we have set out earlier.
The Magistrate rejected the defence and accepting the prosecution case that the respondent was present as the head of the mob on that occasion companyvicted him of the offence charged and sentenced him by his order dated July 8, 1960 to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The crowd was thereupon directed to disperse, its attention being drawn to the promulgation of the order under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code and to the fact that the gathering in a public place in violation of the order made it an unlawful assembly but this companymand was number heeded and the stone throwing companytinued.
Before the learned Sessions Judge an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the trial was barred by s. 403, Criminal Procedure Code by reason of the acquittal of the accused under s. 188, Indian Penal Code on July 30, 1960.
to companye to a companyclusion that the appellant might have been present in the agitation.
The first information report in regard to the incident and the offences companymitted during its companyrse was lodged at the Imphal Police station at about 7 p.m. that day in which the informant specified the name of the respondent Bira Singh as the leader of this mob.
