AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 210 wordsSomasundaram, J.—The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an "offence u/s 2-A Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, and sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months by the trial Court which was reduced to three months by the appellate Court.
The petitioner can be convicted u/s 2-A only if he knowing or having reason, to believe that an order for detention has bean passed in respect of the person who is said to have been harboured by the petitioner. The order of detention passed by the Government has not been filed in this case. u/s 64, Evidence Act the order must be proved by filing an order itself. No secondary evidence of the order is permissible unless the conditions mentioned in Section 65 are satisfied. It is not the case of the prosecution that their action falls within the scope of Section 65, Evidence Act. The evidence of a newspaper in which it was stated that a person was wanted is not sufficient, especially when knowledge or reason to believe has to be proved by prosecution. The case is covered by the Privy Council ruling in -- AIR 1944 54 (Privy Council) .
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.