JUDGMENT
B.K. Mullick, J.
1. The petitioner has been fined a sum of Rs. 5 for committing an offence under Section 32 of the General Police (Act V of 1861.)
2. It appears that in August 1923 the Superintendent of Police of Bhagalpur, acting under Section 30 of the General Police Act (Act V of 1861), issued a general notice on the residents of certain quarters in the town of Bhagalpur requiring that all persons directing or promoting processions should apply to him for a license. On the 21st August 1924 the petitioner applied for a license to take out a religious procession. On the same day a license was prepared and signed, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but on the back of it an endorsement was made by a Police Officer named Mr. Hare to the following effect:
3. “The petitioner must certify on the application that he understands the provisions under which the pass is issued. This license will not be issued until this is done.”
4. The petitioner never came for his license nor was it sent to him; but the petitioner on the 23rd August took out his procession. No disturbance took place and in fact the local Sub-Inspector, having learnt that the procession would. issue, deputed certain Police Officers to accompany it.
5. The Deputy Magistrate, who tried the case, sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 75 : but on appeal the Sessions Judge reduced it to Rs. 5 holding that the offence was technical.
6. In my opinion the petitioner has committed no offence at all. Section 30 of the Police Act gives the Police power to control processions. In order that this power may be exercised, the Act in certain circumstances authorises the Police to require persons to apply for licenses. The object of this is that adequate arrangements for control may be made in time. Clause (3) of Section 30 gives the Police power to define the conditions on which a procession shall be permitted to take place. If any of these conditions are broken, the offence is punishable under Section 32. Similarly if there is a failure to apply for license, there is a violation of an order issued under Section 30 and, therefore,” an offence punishable under Section 32. But so far as I can see the Police have no power to forbid the issue of a procession. The power to control does not include the power to forbid
7. Section 30 does not prescrible how the conditions of a license are to be made known to the applicant; but it is implied, I think, that the application shall be made in sufficient time to permit of the conditions being communicated to the applicant. Ordinarily a day would be fixed by the Police for the applicant’s appearance to take the license or arrangements would be made by him for its delivery to him or to his agent. If the applicant chooses to take out his procession after applying for his license and without waiting to acquaint himself with the conditions he does so at his own risk provided the license has been issued. In the Act the word “issue” has not been defined; but I take it that it signifies that if the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police signs the license and delivers it to some one with directions that it shall in due course be delivered to the applicant the license has been issued within the meaning of Section 30. In the present case if Mr. Hare intended that the issuing should not be complete till the license was actually delivered to the applicant in person, then the position is that the petitioner applied in time but did not wait for the issue of the license. In that case also it cannot be said that the petitioner has disobeyed any order passed under Section 30. Section 30 required him to make an application in time and he made it. As I understand the law he was, therefore, free to take out his procession on the 23rd August whether the license had by then been issued or not. If the license had been issued, he was bound to obey the conditions whether it had been delivered or not; if on the other hand it had not been issued he was bound only to see that the general law was not broken. The power of control and dispersal given to the Police by the Act was sufficient to secure the public safety.
8. The, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice that the general notification in this case was issued so long ago as August 1923 and it is urged that Section 30 of the Act does not contemplate that prohibitory orders of this nature should remain in force for such long periods. There is no restriction in the section itself; but it is obvious that some revision of the term is from time to time indicated with reference to local conditions.
9. The result is that the conviction and the sentence are set aside and it is directed that the fine, if paid, be refunded.
Ross, J.
10. I agree.
