JUDGMENT 1. . - This is an appeal flied by the State after obtaining necessary leave against the order of acquittal of the respondents for offences under Rules 43(5) and 36 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, hereafter referred to as the Rules, and S. 188, I.P.C. passed in this case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Jodhpur, on 13th March, 1976. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the prosecution of the two respondents may be briefly stated as follows:- 3. On 7th December, 1975, at 4. 15 p. m. Head Constable Malam Singh and Literate Constable Mohan Singh saw Gopal Krishna and Bal Krishna respondents standing near Clock Tower, Jodhpur. The respondents were asking Thela drivers to take away their Thelas from there and to make room for holding a meeting that was to be addressed by Shri Rancher Dass Gattaal. The respondents were raising slogans, e.g.VARNACULAR MATTER OMMITEDOn hearing these slogans, Malam Singh, Head Constable, asked the respondents not to indulge in such activities, as were forbidden by law, during the emergency the two respondents turned deaf ears to his advice and raised new slogans under a loud tone, e.g.VARNACULAR MATTER OMMITEDOn hearing these slogans, large number of persons assembled there. As there-was likelihood of danger of breach of the peace, Malam Singh, Head Constable, and Mohan Singh, Literate Constable, brought the respondents to the police out-post .where also the latter shouted slogans. The respondents were then arrested by the police on the first information report of Malam Singh. The police registered a criminal case against the respondents under rules 38 and 43 of the Rules and S. 188, I.P.C. and, after making necessary investigation into it, filed a charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, tried the respondents after framing separate charges against each of them under Rules 43 (5) read with Rule 36 (6) (e) of the Rules and S. 188, I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty there to. 4. Consequently, he acquitted the respondents of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has come-up in appeal to this Court after obtaining necessary leave. 5. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the Public Prosecutor and the two respondents in person. 4. Consequently, he acquitted the respondents of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has come-up in appeal to this Court after obtaining necessary leave. 5. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the Public Prosecutor and the two respondents in person. At the outset I may observe that the learned Public Prosecutor submitted before me that he does not want to press his appeal. The respondents, however, contended that they have been rightly acquitted of the charges framed against them by the trial court as the prosecution could not succeed in bringing guilt home to them beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The short question that arsed for determination in this case is whether the two respondents by shouting referred to above slogans committed any prejudicial act as defined in clause 6 of Rule 36 of the Rules. Upon, careful review of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the view that the slogans shouted by the respondents in a public place near Clock Tower Jodhpur were not such as to bring in hatred or contempt or excite disaffection toward the Government established by Law in India. Slogans uttered by them do not have the tendency to instigate, directly or indirectly, the use of criminal force, to any public servant or to promote feelings entity or hatred between different classes of persons in India. Malam Singh, P. W. 2, no doubt, stated in his deposition at the trial that the two respondents shouted slogans to change the despotic Government by violent means but his evidence on this point was rightly disbelieved by the trial court for the simple reasons that he did not state anything about this slogan in the first information report Ex. P. 3 and in his subsequent statement Ex. P. 1. When confronted with and contradicted by his previous statements on this point, the witness merely stated that he might have forgotten to state this fact in his previous statements. Apart from this, Mohan Singh, L.C.P.W. 4, did not corroborate the evidence of his associate Malam Singh on this point. According to his version, the two respondents were shouting slogans, i.e. the Government is corrupt, lift the emergency, and rescind the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. which has been made in an arbitrary and in a despotic manner. Apart from this, Mohan Singh, L.C.P.W. 4, did not corroborate the evidence of his associate Malam Singh on this point. According to his version, the two respondents were shouting slogans, i.e. the Government is corrupt, lift the emergency, and rescind the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. which has been made in an arbitrary and in a despotic manner. The other independent, witnesses, namely, Sultan, P.W. 1 and Jhamku also did not say in their depositions that the two respondents were inciting people to change the Government by violent means. The dominant intention of the respondents in raising the referred to above slogans was to criticise the Government and the imposition of an order under S. 144, Cr. P. C. and to advocate the lifting-up of emergency and the release of the opposition leaders. The slogans did not go so far beyond the point of legitimate criticism of the Government and its action. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the two respondents were rightly acquitted by the trial court of the offence punishable under Rule 43(2) read with Rule 36(6) of the Rules. 7. As regards the offence punishable under S. 185,T. P. C. it may be observed that there is no proof on the record that an order S. 144, Cr. P. C. was duly promulgate at Clock Tower by a public servant empowered to promulgate such an order. In the absence of any such evidence, the trial court committed no error in making the following observations in its judgement:- "P.W. 6 Mr S.K. Vijay, Addl. District Magistrate, Jodhpur has also come into the witness-box. But there is not an iota of evidence that the promulgated the prohibitory order imposed under section 144 Cr. P. C. But the fact, that the accused has admitted in his cross-examination that in his opinion the prohibitory order of 4.12.75 was not in public interest could not be termed to mean that he was aware of the contents of the prohibitory order issued under section 144, Cr. P.C. Moreover, this is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution should stand upon its own legs. The prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defence. Under these circumstances. "I am of the opinion that neither the prohibitory order issued under sections 144 Cr. P.C. Moreover, this is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution should stand upon its own legs. The prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defence. Under these circumstances. "I am of the opinion that neither the prohibitory order issued under sections 144 Cr. P. C. was duly promulgated nor the alleged disobedience of that order by the accused tended to cause riot or affray. I, therefore, reject the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P, having no force." 8. Hence, there would be no offence under section 188, I. P. C. unless it is proved that the order alleged to have been disobeyed by the respondents had been duly promulgated. There is no proof on the record that the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. was made known by beat of drum or by publication in gazette or by reading out the order openly in public. The respondents were, therefore, not guilty for disobedience of an order under S. 144, Cr. P. C. 9. The result is that, upon scrutiny of the entire evidence, I do not find any substantial ground for interference with the finding of the lower court as to innocence of the respondents. The appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are on , bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled. *******