LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NASIMKHAN AHMAD KHAN MALI KHAN, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F 8 33 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NASIMKHAN AHMAD KHAN MALI KHAN, ETC. August 17, 1970 [K. S. HEGDE AND l. D. DuA, JJ.] Bombay Probation of Offenders Act, 1938, s. 5(1)1a)-Scope of --If should have been applied in a case where strikers caused grievous bodily hann to loyal ·workers. T,he respondents \Vere employees of B.E.S.T. running bus services in the city of Bombay. They were members of a Union known as B.E.S.T. L 1nion \vhich de.clarcli a strike in August, 1963. As a result several "orkers struck work but some disregarded the call for strike and con- tinued to work. On the third day of the strike the respondents stopped a bus in operation and attacked and seriously injured the conductor and the driver of the bus as well as a police constable. The respondents were thereafter tried and convicted on various charges and the trial judge im- posed sentences of t"'o years imprisonment on one respondent and one ye"r imprisoment on the others. In their appeal to the High Court the r°'pondents did not challenge their conviction but only prayed for alte- ration of the sentences. The learned single judge, while agreeing with the findings of the trial court, took the view that the accused had acted on a sudden impulse and on account of heat and anger; that they di<l not belong to the regular class of criminals and in all the circumstances he directed the rcspon<lents to enter into a bond under s. 5 ( 1) (a) of thi.: Bombay Prohation of Offenders Act, 1938, for specified periods, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. On appeal to this Court, HELD : The le"rned single judge seriously erred in applying the pro- visions of s. 5(1)(a) in the present case. The learned judge did not take into consideration the age or the phy- sical or mental condition of the offenders. So far as the character of the accused was concerned, he could have considered it only in the context of what they did on the day of the occurrence. There was no other material before him. The offences committed by them showed that they were desperate choracters. The only thing that the learned judge could G he said to have considered were the circumstances in which the offences were committed. The fact that there was a call for strike is no ground for arson and assault of a grievous character. No section of the society can be permitted to take law into its own hand. There are ways to remedy social injustices. No individual can take upon himself the right to remedy any wrong done to him. It is impossible to have an orderly society. if we take to the ways of the jungle. There may be a genuine desire to change the present social order but that must and can he done H through tne instrumentaliti"5 of the State. In the fi 0 al analysis. it is the peoolc of this country through their representatives that must decide the social goals. Jf social wrongs are sought to be remedied in the streets, then there can he neither peace nor progress. Without progress the L 169S:ip.CHPl/7t-9 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] I S.C.R. attainment of social justice is impossible. Under our Constitution the A rule of law has been made our way of life. It is a fallacy to think that rule of Jaw and the law of the jungle can co-exist. [83 7 D-G] [As the period of the suspended sentences was over. the Court dismissed the appeal with the above observations]. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 18! and 182 of 1967. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal< Nos. 356 and 357 of 1965. · H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. Hardev Singh, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 181/67). The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In these appeals by special leave, we are only concerned with the question of sentence. The respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1967 are not represented though they were served with the notice of the appeal. The question of sentence in this case has assumed consider- able importance. In order to assess that question, it is necessary to refer to tl:e incidents tl)at led up to the prosecution of the respondents. The respondents in both the appeals were pro- secuted in case No. 254 of 1964 in the court of Sessions for Greater Bombay. They were charged with various offences. These respondents were members of a Union known as B.E.S.T. Union. In about the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.