Mahanth Baba Badri Dass vs Emperor

B.K. Mullick, Acting C.J.

The petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 u/s 32 of the Police Act (V of 1861). It is admitted that the petitioner took out a license for a procession to proceed from Bakarganj to Patna City, one of the conditions of which was that no member of it was to carry a lathi or a sword. The Inspector of Police joined the procession at Muradpur which is some distance from the starting point and found that some of its members were carrying swords and doing lathi play. He asked the petitioner to stop the lathi play but the petitioner made some unsatisfactory reply in the vernacular of which the English translation in the record is "they would play".

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was only responsible for seeing that no member of the procession carried a lathi at the time the procession started and that he was not called upon to control those who joined it on the way.

I my opinion that is not a correct view of the law. The object of a license under the Police Act is to ensure the preservation of public order and clearly the licensee must undertake the duty of maintaining order throughout the course of the procession. He takes the risk, as ha must do, of persons joining the procession on the way and of circumstances arising which will require him to compel them to conform to the terms of the license. He cannot be heard to say that they joined without his leave and authority and that he was in no way responsible for them. If they get out of hand he should break up the procession or ask the assistance of the Police.

Bat here the petitioner declined to assist the Police and merely said that the lathi play would go on. In my opinion the inference is irresistible that the lathi players were members of the petitioner''s assembly and that they were contravening the terms of the license with his permission if not under his direct orders. The conviction and sentence will, therefore, be affirmed and this application dismissed. The Police might, no doubt, have declared the procession to be an unlawful assembly and called upon it to disperse but because they did not exercise that power the petitioner is not relieved from his duty.

Wort, J.

I agree. It has been argued that by reason of the provisions of Section 30-A of the Police Act, which gives Magistrates, District Superintendents and Inspectors of Police power to stop any procession which violates the conditions of a license, the licensee is thereby excused from controlling the persons who may have joined the procession and over whom the licensee states he has no control. This, however, is clearly fallacious. The section referred to gives the power to the officers mentioned to stop a procession in spite of the procession having been licensed, and thus gives them a power which they otherwise would not hare in law as already indicated. This does not excuse a licensee from strictly complying with the conditions of his license, and, in the view which I take of the facts of this Case and of the law, the conditions of the license were broken and the licensee was, therefore, properly convicted.