Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1977 (2) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh Court with the difference that whereas the former upheld the sentence too, the latter has reduced it to the period already undergone. In this appeal by special leave the Iegality of conviction is questioned by the appellants. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants are leaders of the Northern. Railwaymen's Union and that on May 5, 1974 they held a meeting in Tughlakabad Railway Yard inciting railway workers to go on strike from May 8. This is alleged to be in breach of the order passed by the Government of India under rule 118(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. That rules reads thus: 118. Avoidance of strikes and lockouts.--(1) If in the opinion of the Central Government or the State Government it is necessary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supplies and services essential to the life of the community to prevent strikes in the Railway Services 'and that therefore the Central Government hereby prohibits a strike in connection with any industrial dispute/disputes in the said Railway Services in India for a period of six months w.e.f. the 26th November, 1973. In support of its case the prosecution examined three witnesses called S.D. Sharing, Dilbagh Rai and jasbir Singh. Sharma's evidence is in the nature of hearsay and indeed he admits in so many words that his knowledge regarding the incitement given by the appellants to the Railway workers to go on strike was derived solely from information received by him. The witness admits that he had no personal knowledge tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of India under r. 118(1)(a) is in the circumstances of this case the words used by the speakers and not the gist of the speeches made by a member of the audience. A summary of a speech may broadly and generally not be inaccurate and yet it may not faithfully reflect what the speaker actually said and in what context. Therefore, we would prefer not to rely on the gist given by the witness without knowing the data on the basis of which the gist was given. The charge must therefore fail. One of the points urged before us is whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on Ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof. Accordingly, the Courts below were justified in assuming, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on May 5, 1974 and that a strike intended to paralyse the civic life of the Nation was undertaken by a section of workers on May 8, 1974. But the matter does not rest there. Rule 118(1)(a) empowers the Government to issue an order prohibiting a strike in connection with any industrial dispute . The Order issued by the Government on November 26, 1973 recites, as required by the Rule, that the Central Government prohibits a strike in connection wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y connection with an industrial dispute or not, there can be no contravention of the order unless it is established by evidence that the strike was in connection with an industrial dispute. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove this important ingredient of the offence and the generalisation made'by the witnesses in their evidence is wholly inadequate for accepting that the appellants gave incitement to a strike in connection with any industrial dispute. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration, who are respondents to the appeal, that what is contemplated by rule 118(1)(a) itself is a strike in connection with an industrial dispute and therefore it is not necessary for the prosecution to e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates