# Seymour v. Bullerworth ([1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377), R. v

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 476
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-07-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1955
- **Bench:** Bhaowati, Chandrasekhara Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/seymour-v-bullerworth-1862-3-f-f-372-376-377-r-v-1320
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Punjab Security of the Stole Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of
1953), s. 9-Members of proce38ion shouting defamatory slogans against
Ministers of State Government-Prosecution under •· 9-Whether
j11stified.
The appellants were members of a. procession taken out to protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to nationalise
motor transport and raised the slogans "Jaggu mama hai hai (Jaggu,
maternal uncle he dead)" and "Khachar Kbota hai hai (mule·cum·
donkey be dead)". The words were directed against the Transport
Minister and the Chief Minister respe9tively and were defamatory.
The appellants were prosecuted and convicted under s. 9 of the Pun·
jab Security of the mate Act, 1953.
Held that the statements could not be said to undermine the
security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States nor did
they amount to contempt of Court or defamation prejudicial to the
security of the State nor did they tend to overthrow the State and
that the prosecution had failed to establish that the act of the ap·
pellants undermined public order, decency or mora.lity or was tantamount to an incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and consequently the prosecution under s. 9
was not justified.
Public men may as well think it worth their while to ignore
such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them, rather than
give importance to the same by prosecuting the person responsible
for the same.
Seymour v. Bullerworth ([1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377), R. v.
Sir R. Carden ((1879] 5 Q.B.D. 1), Kelly v. Sherlock ([1866] L.R. 1
Q.B. 686, 689; 35 L.J. Q.B. 209) referred to.

## Text

19~6
AJ>ril 26
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
KARTAR SINGH & OTHERS
"·
THE STATE OF PUNJAB.
[BHAOWATI and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.]
Punjab Security of the Stole Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of
1953), s. 9-Members of proce38ion shouting defamatory slogans against
Ministers of State Government-Prosecution under •· 9-Whether
j11stified.
The appellants were members of a. procession taken out to protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to nationalise
motor transport and raised the slogans "Jaggu mama hai hai (Jaggu,
maternal uncle he dead)" and "Khachar Kbota hai hai (mule·cum·
donkey be dead)". The words were directed against the Transport
Minister and the Chief Minister respe9tively and were defamatory.
The appellants were prosecuted and convicted under s. 9 of the Pun·
jab Security of the mate Act, 1953.
Held that the statements could not be said to undermine the
security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States nor did
they amount to contempt of Court or defamation prejudicial to the
security of the State nor did they tend to overthrow the State and
that the prosecution had failed to establish that the act of the ap·
pellants undermined public order, decency or mora.lity or was tantamount to an incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and consequently the prosecution under s. 9
was not justified.
Public men may as well think it worth their while to ignore
such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them, rather than
give importance to the same by prosecuting the person responsible
for the same.
Seymour v. Bullerworth ([1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377), R. v.
Sir R. Carden ((1879] 5 Q.B.D. 1), Kelly v. Sherlock ([1866] L.R. 1
Q.B. 686, 689; 35 L.J. Q.B. 209) referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 1955.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated the
9th July, 1954 of the Punjab High Court at Simla in
Criminal Revision No. 778 of 1954 arising out of the
judgment and order dated the 30th June 1954 of the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in
Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1954.
----
,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
477
Ram Das and Raghu Nath Pandit, for the appellants.
J indralal and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent.
1956. April 26.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave
involves the interpretation of section 9 of the Punjab
Security of the State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of
1953), hereinafter called "the Act".
The appellants were members of the Amritsar
District Motor Union which took out a procession on
23rd March, 1954 to protest against the policy of the
Punjab Government to nationalise motor transport.
The procession started from Gui Park and was taken
on lorries and jeeps. It stopped near Chitra Talkies
and then started on foot. When it reached near
Prabha.t Studio, the appellants raised slogans "Jaggu
mama hai hai (Jaggu, maternal uncle be dead)" and
"Khachar Khota hai hai (mule-cum-donkey be
dead)". The first slogan was alleged to have been
directed against the Hon'ble Shri Jagat Narain,
Transport Minister, Punjab State and the second
slogan against the Hon'ble Shri Bhim Sen Sachar,
Chief Minister, Punjab State. The uttering of these
slogans was considered objectionable and the appellants were charged in the Court of the Magistra.te,
First-Class, Amritsar:-"that you, on or about the
23rd day of Ma.rch 1954 at Amritsar, while being
members of a procession, raised slogans "J aggu mama
hai hai" "Khachar Khota hai hai" which besides being indecent amounted to defamation and was prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public orde·r and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 9 of the Security of
the State .Act".
The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. They also led evidence in defence. The
learned Magistrate, however, disbelieved the defence
n.nd, accepting the prosecution evidence, found that
the appellants did raise these slogans. In the opinion
1956
Kartar Singh
and others
••
The Stale of
Punjab
1956
Karlar Singh
and others
v.
The State-of
Punjab
BhagwatlJ.
'
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
of the learned Magistrate, the slogans were in fact
abuses hurled at the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister of the Punjab Government which besides
being indecent amounted to defamation and were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The appeal taken by the appellants before the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was unsuccessful.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge also
found against the appellants and observed that the
slogans were highly objectionable and they fell within
the ambit of section 9 of the said Act, that by raising
those slogans the appellants undermined the public
order as well as decency and they also amounted to
defamation. He, therefore, maintained the conviction of the appellants and the sentences of 3 months'
rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed by
the learned Magistrate upon them.
The appellants filed a Revision Application before
the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab
at Simla but the same was summarily dismissed by
the learned Chief Justice. The appellants thereafter
applied for and obtained from this Court Special Leave
to appeal and the appeal has accordingly come on for
hearing and final disposal before us.
On the evidence on record, there is no doubt that
the appellants were members of the procession and
did utter those slogans against the Transport Minister
and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government.
The question, however, remains whether, in uttering these slogans, they committed an offence under
section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads as
follows:-
"9. Whoever-
(a)
makes any speech, or
(b)
by words, whether spoken or written, or
by signs or by visible or audible representations
or otherwise publishes any statement, rumour or
report,
shall, if such speech, statement, rumour or report
undermines the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality, or amounts to contempt of Court, defama-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
479
tion or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the
security of the State or the maintenance of public
order, or tends to overthrow the State, be punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to three years
or with fine or with both".
It cannot be denied that the appellants by words
spoken published
statements in relation to the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government. A futile argument was advanced
before us by the advocate of the appellants that
this condition was not satisfied but we need not pause
to consider the same. The sole question for our determination is whether such statements (1) undermined the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality
or (2) amounted to contempt of Court, defamation or
incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security of
the State or maintenance of public order, or (3)
tended to overthrow the State.
The appellants were no doubt affected by the
policy of the Punjab Government to nationalise motor
transport and the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister were really responsible for sponsoring that
policy. Their tirade, therefore, was against both
these individuals and, in the demonstration which
the appellants held against that policy, they gave
vent to violent expressions of opinion against them
and, in the slogans which they uttered, used expressions which were certainly objectionable. The slogan
"Jaggu mama hai hai" could be translated as "Jaggu,
whose sister is my father's wife is dead, woe betide
him" and was in that sense a vulgar abuse hurled
against the Transport Minister. The slogan "Khachar khota hai hai" could be translated as "mulecum-donkey is dead, woe betide him" and it was
directed against the Hon'ble Shri Bhim Sen Sachar,
Chief Minister, Punjab Government, whose name
Sachar was caricatured into khachar being mule and
was also combined with khota, a donkey. This was
a.gain a vulgar abuse hurled against the Chief Minister, Punjab Government.
The appellants' conduct in this behalf could not at
1956
K artar Siflgh
and others
v.
The State of
Punjab
Bhagu,ati J.
1956
Kartar Singh
aud others
v.
Th..! State of
Punjab
Blurgwati J.
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
all be justified. Whatever their grievances against the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government were, they were entitled to ventilate
them in a decent and dignified manner and they
were certainly not justified in hurling such vulgar
abuses against these individuals howsoever prejudicial to the interest of the appellants the policy of nationalised motor transport sponsored by them might
have been. No decent citizen should have uttered
such slogans and the State authorities were well within their rights in proceeding against the appellants.
The difficulty, however,in the way of the State authorities is that they misconceived their remedy. Howsoever provocative and indecent or unbefitting a responsible citizen of the State the conduct of the appellants was, the charge which was levelled against the
appellants was one under section 9 of the Act and
before the prosecution could succeed they had not
only to prove that what the appellants did was
against decency and was defamatory of these individuals but also was such that it undermined public
order, decency or morality or was tantamount to an
incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel for the
State very rightly conceded that the statements could
not be said to undermine the security of the State or
friendly relations with foreign States nor did they
amount to contempt of Court or defamation prejudicial to the security of the State nor did they tend to
overthrow the State. Howsoever reprehensible these
slogans were, they certainly would not have that
effect. The only way in which he sought to bring
these slogans uttered by the appellants within the
mischief of section 9 of the Act was by urging before
us that the statements undermined public order,
decency or morality and that they were tantamount
to an incitement to an offence prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. In support of this contention he referred us to the evidence of Ram
Rakha, P.W. 2, Sub-Inspector, C.I.D., who had accompanied the procession:-
"There was a sufficient num her of public men
-~
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
481
there and they felt· annoyed over these slogans. The
police had sufficient arrangements and had there been
no arrangement there might have been a dispute".
There was also the evidence of Gurdit Singh, P. W. 3:-
"There were many other persons of the public
with the procession. People took these slogans ill"
and SunQ.er Singh, P. W. 4:-
"There were many 9ther persons of the public.
The slogans had a bad effect on the public".
It is significant to observe that, in the initial report
made by the Sub-Inspector Ram Rakha as also the
Diary Report prepared by him~ no mention had been
made by him of the members of the public having
felt annoyed over these slogans. The two other
witnesses Gurdit Singh, P~W. 3 and Sunder Singh,
P. W. 4, were shown in their cross-examination to
have been the associates of the police in the in vestigations which they used to carry on and were not at
all worthy of credence. These statements, therefore,
in regard to the members of the public having felt
annoyed over these slogans uttered by the appellants,
were liable to be discredited. Even assuming that
some members of the public who had congregated
near the Prabhat Studio felt annoyed at these slogans
and took them ill it is a far cry from that annoyance
to undermining of the public order, decency or morality or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the
maintenance o.f public order. The only offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which could be
thought of in this context was that of rioting
and there is not the slightest evidence on record to
justify an inference that the effect of the utterance
of these slogans by the appellants against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister would, but for
the police arrangements, have led to the undermining
of the public order or would have led to rioting
which would be certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Indecent and vulgar though
these slogans were as directed against the Transport
Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, the utterance thereof by the appellants who
were the members of the procession protesting against
1956
K artar Si11gh
a11d others
....
The State of
Punjab
Bhagu:atiJ.
. 1956
l{artar Singh
and others
v.
Tlac State oj
P1oijab
Bliagwati J,
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
the scheme of nationalised motor transport was
hardly calculated to undermine decency or morality
the strata of society from which the appellants came
being habituated to indulge freely in such vulgar
abuses without any the slightest effect on the persons
hearing the same.
These slogans were certainly defamatory of the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the
Punjab Government but the redress of that grievance
was personal to these individuals and the State
authorities could not take the cudgels on their behalf
by having recourse to section 9 of the Act unless and
until the defamation of these individuals was prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. So far as these individuals were
concerned, they did not take any notice of these
vulgar abuses and appeared to have considered the
whole thing as beneath their notice. Their conduct
in this behalf was consistent with the best traditions
of democracy. "Those who fill a public position must
not be too thin skinned in reference to comments
made upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they
know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved
and unjust; yet they must bear with them and
submit to be misunderstood for a time" (Per Cockburn, C.J. in Seyrnour v. Butterworth(') and see the
dicta of the Judges in R. v. Sir R. Carden(')). "Whoever fills a public position renders himself open
thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary,
though unpleasant, appendage to his office" (Per
Bramwell, B., in Kelley v. Sherlock(')). Public men in
such positions may as well think it worth their while
to ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled
against them rather than give importance to the
same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the
same.
While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab
Government, we cannot help observing that the step
(11 [1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377; 176 KR. 166, 168, 169.
(2) [1879] 5 Q.D.D. 1.
(3) [186G] L.R. 1 '< Il. 686, 689.
•
l
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
483
which the State authorities took against the appellants
in prosecuting them under section 9 of the Act was
unjustified as the slogans uttered by the appellants
did not under the circumstances set out above fall
within the mischief of that section.
Deprecating as we do the conduct of the appellants
in uttering these slogans, we cannot help feeling that
the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants were guilty of the offence with which they had
been charged with the result that the appeal of the
appellants will be allowed, their convictions and sentences passed upon them will be set aside and they
will be set at liberty forthwith.
We only hope that
the observations made by us here will be an eyeopener to the appellants and they will behave themselves better in the future.
JASWANTRAI MANILAL AKHANEY
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.]
Criminal breach a/trust-Conviction of a banker, Validity a/-
Government Promissory Notes pledged with a bank to cover overdraft
-No overdraft by the pledgor-Managin(J Director actin(J on behalf
of all the Directors pledging the Notes to borrow money for the use of
the bank-Legality-Sale of the Notes by the creditors to realise their
dues and conseqitent inability of the bank to return them-Mens rea
-Sanction to prosecute by the Company Judge, if i·equired-Framing
of charge, if defective-Indian Penal Code (Act XL V of 1860 ), ss.
409, 79-Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. 179-Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913), s.179-Code of Criminal Procedui·e (Act V
of 1898), ss. 221, 222, 223.
The appellant 'Was the Managing Director of a bank and held
a power of attorney to act on behalf of its Directors and authorising
him to borrow money on behalf of the bank. Certain Government
Promissory Notes were pledged with the bank by another bank to
cover an overdraft account up to a specified amount. There was,
however, no overdraft by the pledgor.
The pledgee bank was in a
precarious financial condition. The appellant pledged the securities
with a third party to get a loan for the bank's use and on its failure
63
1956
Kartar Singh
and others
v.
The State of
Punjab
Bhagwati J.
1956
May4