JUDGMENT Miller, J. 1. The appellant Chidambaram Pillai has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life: the occasion of the alleged offence was a speech made by him at the Thai Poosa Mantapam in the bed of the river Tambraparni at Tinnevelly on the night of the 9th of March last. 2. Objection was taken as in Criminal Appeal. No. 503 of 1908 to the complaint and the authority under which it was made. Mr. Sadagopachariar did not appear for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 1908, but he was heard before the hearing of that appeal was concluded, and it is after hearing and considering his arguments that we have in that appeal held that the complaint was sufficient and duly authorized. For the same reasons, we arrive, in this appeal, at the same conclusion. It is further contended that the charge is defective because it does not set out what portions of the speech of the accused are within the provisions of Section 124A, and what are within those of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The whole speech is set out. The charges are that, in making the speech, the accused attempted to excite disaffection towards Government and to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between classes. It is one of the arguments for the defence that the true intent can be arrived at only by a consideration of the whole speech, and that being so, it is not easy to see what further information the accused can properly require (see Emperor v. Tribhuvandas 10 Bom., L.R. 801. We hold that the charge is not defective. 4. The argument on the merits proceeds upon two principal grounds. It is contended (first) that the speech was not delivered as reported and (secondly) that it is not seditious. The circumstances in which the speech was delivered are set out in paragraph 5 of the learned Additional Sessions Judges judgment and are not in dispute. 5. The appellants speech was reported by the prosecution second witness, Krishnasami Naidu, Police Inspector of Tinnevelly, who alleges that he was deputed to attend the meeting and that as Special Branch Inspector it is his duty to take notes of speeches made on such occasions. 5. The appellants speech was reported by the prosecution second witness, Krishnasami Naidu, Police Inspector of Tinnevelly, who alleges that he was deputed to attend the meeting and that as Special Branch Inspector it is his duty to take notes of speeches made on such occasions. It is the case of the appellant that this witness was not present at the meeting and several witnesses are called to say that they did not see him there. Of these defence witnesses Nos. 1, 3 and 4 did not at that time know him by sight: the defence 2nd witness did not see the prosecution third witness, Inspector Viraragava Iyer either, though it is certain that that officer was present: and the defence 8th witness did not see the prosecution second witness. Against this is the statement of the second and third witnesses for the prosecution which we unhesitatingly prefer. The prosecution second witness was not in uniform: no attempt has been made to show that he was not in Tinnevelly on the 9th of March 1908 and if he was in Tinnevelly there is every probability that he was present at this meeting: and it is improbable that if the report of the speech was subsequently concocted, the note would have been attributed to a man who was not present. The defence pointed out certain discrepancies as to the receipt of the orders to attend the meeting and the place where the officers stood or sat. On the latter point, the Additional Sessions Judge says that the discrepancy was cleared up when he visited the Mantapam with the Assessors and Vakils, and no doubt the ledge where the prosecution second witness sat can be properly described as on the Mantapam: on the former, there is no important difficulty: it is not likely that either witness is deliberately telling a false story which can be contradicted by his superior officers. 6. It may be that the prosecution third witness, Viraragava Iyer, ought to have taken a note, but we do not think the fact that he did not do so, helps to prove that Krishnasami Naidu could not do so. 7. Evidence was called to prove that at the place where the prosecution second witness sat, there was not sufficient light to enable him to take a note, but we do not think this is proved. 7. Evidence was called to prove that at the place where the prosecution second witness sat, there was not sufficient light to enable him to take a note, but we do not think this is proved. The police-officers say that the Mantapam was well lighted all round, and that seems probable considering the occasion. Even if most of the lights were on the western side of the Mantapam, it does not follow that the southern side would be so dark that notes could not be written. There were certainly open lights on the top of the Mantapam, which gave a bright light, though certain of the defence witnesses ignore them when questioned on the subject of lighting, and this light would have been diffused round the Mantapam. It is probable, we think, that there was plenty of light. We are not prepared to accept the evidence of the defence witnesses as entirely accurate on this point; but whether there was plenty of light or not we have no doubt that there was enough to enable notes to be recorded. 8. Then, it is suggested that the notes are too neatly written to have been written at the spot. We do not trunk that their neatness is incompatible with their having been recorded as alleged, but we cannot accept as perfectly accurate the statement of the prosecution third witness that nothing but such unimportant words as listen was omitted. 9. The defence witnesses are not unanimous as to the pace at which Chidambaram Pillai spoke (vide deposition of the defence 7th witness) but no doubt no note not recorded in shorthand could contain everything that was said by the speaker. The police recorded what appeared to them important and there seems no reason why they should not have done so with substantial accuracy. It is probable that they did not record all that was said about B.C. Pal in whose honour the celebration was held but we do not think that because the witnesses have to some extent exaggerated the completeness of the report, we need doubt the accuracy of what has been recorded. We may fairly then ask the defence to point out how the plain meaning of the sentences recorded was altered or modified or explained away by anything else which the speaker said but the reporter omitted. No evidence has been given that anything was so said. We may fairly then ask the defence to point out how the plain meaning of the sentences recorded was altered or modified or explained away by anything else which the speaker said but the reporter omitted. No evidence has been given that anything was so said. The defence witnesses who speak on this question merely deny that they heard anything said about the Government or Europeans. The defence witnesses generally give an account of the topics dealt with in the speech, which does not materially differ from that of the police. The speech opened, they say, as the police also say, with some account of the hero of the celebration, B.C. Pal, and it continued with a dissertation on industries, boycott of foreign goods, panchayats and national education. The police omit only education of these. It is in the speakers method of treating these subjects that the report differs from the defence evidence, and we prefer the evidence of the report made on the spot and sent before noon on the next day to the Police Superintendents Office. No note of the speech is produced by any defence witness, and the memory of friends and partisans is not to be altogether trusted. We think there can be no doubt that the principal defence witnesses were partisans of the accused. 10. It is argued that the appellant would not have ventured to make the speech recorded in the presence of the police and when he had come to Tinnevelly for the purpose of standing his trial in the security proceedings; but we find nothing in the evidence to indicate any improbability in this. The fact that he spoke at such a meeting at all indicates that he was not of a very submissive temper. We must hold with the Additional Sessions Judge that the speech is reported with substantial correctness. 11. The next question is, whether it is seditious: was it intended to excite disaffection (a word which includes "disloyalty and all feelings of enmity") or to bring the Government into hatred or contempt. 12. We must hold with the Additional Sessions Judge that the speech is reported with substantial correctness. 11. The next question is, whether it is seditious: was it intended to excite disaffection (a word which includes "disloyalty and all feelings of enmity") or to bring the Government into hatred or contempt. 12. The prosecution has put in evidence, speeches made by the appellant at Tuticorin on the 19th and 23rd of February 1908 and a speech made at Tinnevelly on the 11th of March 1908 to show the animus or intention with which the speech of the 9th of March 1908 was delivered; and the defence have for the same purpose put in evidence, speeches of the 22nd and 24th of February and the 4th of March 1908, as recorded by the Police. 13. The speech of the 9th of March 1908 is set out almost as recorded by the police in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (paragraph 7) and we need not reproduce it here. 14. We need not discuss the opening eulogy of B.C. Pal. If, which is by no means clear, the police-officer has misquoted Tiruvalluvar in recording the substance of a verse recited by the accused, that, as the Additional Sessions Judge observes, is an indication that the report was not concocted; but we need not consider further that part of the speech nor the closing account of the state of affairs at Tuticorin and the speakers dealings with the District Magistrate. There is clearly nothing seditious in that. 15. But we find these passages in the speech: "As soon as the English people set foot in India, poverty also made its appearance in the country. So long as the foreign Government exists we shall not prosper. So long as we continue to be the servants and slaves of foreigners we shall have to endure hardships. 16. Three-fourths of the Englishmen now in India are traders. If we all unite and make up our minds not to purchase their goods what business will they have here? They must all run back to their country." 17. He advocates the boycott of foreign goods not as a means for helping Indian industries, but as a means for getting rid of the English. Besides, if we avoid going to these accursed Civil Criminal and Police Courts, the remaining one-fourth of the English will have no work to do. They must all run back to their country." 17. He advocates the boycott of foreign goods not as a means for helping Indian industries, but as a means for getting rid of the English. Besides, if we avoid going to these accursed Civil Criminal and Police Courts, the remaining one-fourth of the English will have no work to do. Thus all the white men will run away from our country. Being 33 crores of people how astonishing it is that we are slaves to 3 crores. The cause of our growing poorer day by day is that 180 crores of rupees are carried away each year in steam ships to a country 6,000 miles away. What country can stand such treatment as this? 18. The dominant note of this portion of the speech is to get rid of the English, the governing class. 19. It is perhaps not astonishing that the speakers programme struck one of his hearers, as not being altogether practical, but it is not suggested that it was not seriously offered to the audience, and the speeches of the 22nd of February and the 4th of March 1908 contain much the same advice. 20. Now, here, nothing is said about Self-Government under British supremacy, or Colonial forms of Government. The accused says that on the 24th of February 1908 he explained his idea of Swaraj and calls two witnesses, defence 23rd and 25th witnesses, to support him. There are reasons for doubting the truth of this statement but even if on the 24th February he said he would accept a form of Swaraj not incompatible with a foreign supremacy, that is not what he put before his Tinnevelly hearers on the 9th of March 1908. What is to be aimed at is the retirement of all foreigners necessarily including in this, the non-trading one-fourth persons authorised by law to administer executive Government (section 17, Indian Penal Code). 21. We have anxiously considered whether it may not be possible to regard this speech as giving expression only to a legitimate aspiration, an aspiration, that is, which it is legitimate to commend for the acceptance of the public. But we do not see how we can reconcile it with loyalty to the Government as established by law in British India or regard it as other than an attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government. 22. But we do not see how we can reconcile it with loyalty to the Government as established by law in British India or regard it as other than an attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government. 22. In our opinion, the appellant has been rightly convicted of offences under Sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. We recognise the gravity of the offence and we do not doubt that the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in taking into his consideration as a guide to a proper sentence, factors other than the speaker, the speech itself and the audience to whom it was addressed. But we think the law will be vindicated by a sentence of four (4) years transportation on the conviction under Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, (we pass no sentence on the conviction under Section 153A, Indian Penal Code); this sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of six. (6) years transportation passed in the other case (Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 1908 on the file of the High Court).