Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: B. Sriniwasa Rao

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 10, 1940
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/815169

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: B. Sriniwasa Rao

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941Mad687

Excerpt

- lakshmana rao, j.1. the appellant was the secretary of the madras socialist party and he delivered two speeches at two public meetings held on 29th september and 15th october last. he was charged under rule 38, clause (5), defence of india rules, and besides alleging some distortions in the transcriptions, he contended that the speeches were not 'prejudicial acts' as denned in rule 34, clause (6). the magistrate held otherwise and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each speech, directing the sentences to run concurrently, the accuracy of the transcriptions of the speeches which were taken down in shorthand by trained sub-inspectors was not seriously disputed, and apart from other objectionable matters the appellant exhorted the audience in both the speeches to desist from enlisting in the army or assisting the prosecution of the war in any manner. he had been warned by the commissioner of police against carrying on such propaganda and the speeches were intended to prejudice the recruiting of persons for services in the army and influence the conduct or attitude of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. they were thus prejudicial acts as defined in sub-clause (d) and (k) of rule 34, clause (6) and the conviction under section 38, clause (5) is correct. it is therefore confirmed, and in the absence of any undertaking not to repeat the offence, the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. the sentence too is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The appellant was the Secretary of the Madras Socialist Party and he delivered two speeches at two public meetings held on 29th September and 15th October last. He was charged under Rule 38, Clause (5), Defence of India Rules, and besides alleging some distortions in the transcriptions, he contended that the speeches were not 'prejudicial acts' as denned in Rule 34, Clause (6). The Magistrate held otherwise and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each speech, directing the sentences to run concurrently, The accuracy of the transcriptions of the speeches which were taken down in shorthand by trained Sub-Inspectors was not seriously disputed, and apart from other objectionable matters the appellant exhorted the audience in both the speeches to desist from enlisting in the army or assisting the prosecution of the war in any manner. He had been warned by the Commissioner of Police against carrying on such propaganda and the speeches were intended to prejudice the recruiting of persons for services in the army and influence the conduct or attitude of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. They were thus prejudicial acts as defined in Sub-clause (d) and (k) of Rule 34, Clause (6) and the conviction under Section 38, Clause (5) is correct. It is therefore confirmed, and in the absence of any undertaking not to repeat the offence, the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The sentence too is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial