Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1952 DIGILAW 99 (KER)

Krishna Warrier v. State

1952-09-18

GOVINDA PILLAI, KOSHI

body1952
Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Second Class Magistrate of Mukundapuram and the District Magistrate, Trichur convicting and sentencing the four petitioners before court who were accused 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 305/50 for their membership and management of an association declared unlawful by a notification issued under S.23 of the Travancore Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. The petitioners were active members of the Cochin Communist Party. Besides assisting and promoting the activities of the said party they were also found to have discussed the programme of the party at a meeting held at the residence of P.W. 4. Each of them was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under S.24(1) and (2) of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 by the trial court. The conviction and sentence passed against them have been confirmed on appeal and they hence move this court in revision. The sole point urged before us is that section 23 of the Travancore Cochin Public Safety Measures Act and the notification issued thereunder are ultra vires the Constitution of India in that they infringed the right to form associations or unions guaranteed to the citizens of India by Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and that they transgressed the bounds of permissible legislation sanctioned by Cl. (4) of the said article. When this revision petition first came up before us it was directed to be reposted after O.P. 8 of 1951 and Crl. Revision Petition 66/51 were disposed of. Those matters were disposed of on 10.12.1951 by a Full Bench of which both of us were members. The said Original Petition and the criminal revision related to one and the same matter, namely, a similar transgression of a notification declaring the Cochin Communist Party unlawful under the law then in force (The Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1124). S.3 of that enactment corresponds to S.23 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. The scope and amplitude of that section were more limited than the present S.23 and the Full Bench declared that section and the notification issued thereunder ultra vires the Constitution. S.3 of that enactment corresponds to S.23 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. The scope and amplitude of that section were more limited than the present S.23 and the Full Bench declared that section and the notification issued thereunder ultra vires the Constitution. The Original Petition and the revision were referred to a Full Bench by us and in the course of the order we observed as follows: "The new Act, that is the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, V of 1950 contains no provision for a judicial review of the declaration nor does it provide for a reference to any Advisory Board. S.23 of the said Act is a reproduction of S.16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, XIV of 1908 with words added to widen its scope and amplitude. S.16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908 has with one voice been condemned by all the three learned judges constituting the Full Bench in A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 147 as absolutely void. Rajamannar, C.J. said: "One could not find a better illustration of the exercise of naked arbitrary power than the original Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Government had only to issue a notification on a subjective satisfaction that an association was unlawful and it was infallible and conclusive. It is impossible to say that the restriction imposed by the original Act is in any sense reasonable within the meaning of Art.19(4) of the Constitution." Words similar, if not more severe, have been used by the other two learned Judges Sathianarayana Row and Viswanatha Sastri, JJ. in condemning S.16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act [XIV of 1908]. When the provision in our present law is equally if not more stringent than that existed in the original Criminal Law Amendment Act in India the attempt to sustain the prosecution against the petitioner and his co-accused by distinguishing the Madras case, even if successful, we are afraid, is sure to give too serious and far-reaching consequence. At one stage in the argument a point was raised that S.23 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act V of 1950 is void but it was later conceded that the point did not directly arise in this case. At one stage in the argument a point was raised that S.23 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act V of 1950 is void but it was later conceded that the point did not directly arise in this case. However as the case raises important and novel questions and even a decision in favour of the State distinguishing the Madras case will inevitably involve implied or indirect condemnation of an existing law we think the proper course for us will be to refer both the petitions for an authoritative decision by a Full Bench of this Court" 2. Chadayammuri v. State -1952 I.L.R. (Travancore-Cochin) 1 at pp. 8-11= AIR 1952 TC, p. 217 at pp 220-221. (1952 KLT 178 at p. 183). The Full Bench as stated already held that S.3 of the Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act and the notification issued thereunder are void under Art.13(a) of the Constitution. In view of that decision the State did not contend that the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioners should be sustained. 3. The Travancore Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 is far more retrograde than the Cochin Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1124. In giving the decision in George Chadayammuri v. State the Full Bench allowed in the main the Madras decision in V.G. Row v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 Mad. 147 and that decision has since been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196). The Travancore-Cochin Government had intervened in that appeal before the Supreme Court and an appeal was also preferred against the Full Bench decision in George Chadayammuri v. State. After the Supreme Court gave the decision in V.G. Row's case upholding the decision of the Madras Court our State withdrew their appeal. The Full Bench decision has hence become final. Regard being had to all these we do not desire to add more words to hold that S.23 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 and the notification issued thereunder are ultra vires the Constitution. It will be mere supererogation to repeat what we said in the former case which dealt with a more benevolent piece of legislation. Holding as we do that S.23 of the impugned Act and the notification declaring the Cochin Communist Party unlawful, ultra vires the Constitution, we quash the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the courts below. It will be mere supererogation to repeat what we said in the former case which dealt with a more benevolent piece of legislation. Holding as we do that S.23 of the impugned Act and the notification declaring the Cochin Communist Party unlawful, ultra vires the Constitution, we quash the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the courts below. Their bail bonds will stand cancelled. Order accordingly. Allowed.