Kuppuswami Mudali and Others vs Emperor

Sundaram Chetty, J.—As the matter now stands, after all the elaborate process in connexion with this case of rioting in both the lower

Courts has been gone through, the question had reduced itself to a simple one. The petitioners who are five of the accused are the only relics of

those convicted by the first Court, and the question is, whether in the face of the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal, even the

conviction u/s 147, I. P. C., in respect of the petitioners is legally sustainable. In order to punish them for rioting, it is not enough to show that they

were members of an unlawful assembly, but it should also be made out that force or violence was used by any member thereof, in prosecution of

the common object of such assembly. The specific acts of violence attributed to them have been disbelieved by the learned Judge, and the rest of

the accused have all been acquitted. In the absence of proof of one of the elements necessary to constitute rioting, their conviction u/s 147 seems

to be irregular. But there is no difficulty upon the evidence, in finding them guilty u/s 143, (the minor offence), as having been members of an

unlawful assembly.

There was doubtless show of criminal offence within the meaning of Clause 1, Section 141, I. P. C. I set aside the conviction u/s 147, and alter

it to one u/s 143, I. P. C. In view of this alteration, I would reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on each, to the

term already undergone (which is very short) and impose on each of the petitioners a fine of Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty only). In default of payment of the

fine each of the petitioners should undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The order u/s 106, Criminal P. C., stands cancelled.