Name: – A.B. Lagu vs State of Madhya Bharat
Citation: – LAWS (MPH)-1950
Date of decision: – 10th- may, 1950
Appellant: – A.B. Lagu
Respondent: – State of Madhya Bharat
Relevant case law: – Narsinga Rao v. V. Surayyaraju A.I.R. 1947
Facts:-
1. A complaint has been registered against the Petitioner which states that he is a member of the Communist Party which had been declared by the Government an unlawful association, and the Petitioner found helping the party.
2. Petitioner refused that he was a member of the Communist Party or that he in any way helped in functioning of the party. He filed petition raising an objection that the Prohibition of Associations Dangerous to Public Peace Act, under which he is being prosecuted, is against Article 19 of the Constitution and is void.
3. Petitioner further claims that the original case pending must be withdrawn from the Court of the City Magistrate and be disposed of on the ground that the case involves substantial question of law.
Issues involved:-
1. Whether Prohibition of Associations Dangerous to Public Peace Act, is against Article 19?
2. Whether the mere ground of substantial question of law is sufficient to dispose of the pending case?
Rationale:-
1. Section 4(1) of Prohibition of Associations Dangerous to Public Peace Act states that “Whoever is a member of an unlawful association, or takes part in meetings of any such association, or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of any such association, or in any way assists the operations of any such association, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” It doesn’t hinder article 19, which allows forming lawful association or unions.”
2. Prosecution fails to prove any of the following essentials of offence under Section 4(1):
“Firstly whether there is a Communist Body; second whether the body has been declared to be an unlawful association and finally whether the Petitioner is a member of the unlawful association.”
Hence it would not be necessary to decide the question whether it violates Article 19 of the Constitution of India and is void.
3. As previously stated in Narsinga Rao v. V. Surayyaraju A.I.R. 1947, that a case cannot be said to involve a question unless its decision is necessary for the purpose of the case. The court in these case states that “the substantial question of law that gives the High Court power to withdraw a case from a subordinate Court must be such that it is not possible to decide the case’ on the facts found therein without considering the constitutional point.”
4. So the court decides on the question “whether the constitutional point is necessary for the disposal of the case, cannot be determined with reference to the time at which the prayer for withdrawal is made.”
Obiter dicta:-
The court gives reference of constitution of India which states that, “If the High Court is satisfied that the case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may (a) either dispose of the case itself or (b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the Court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a copy of judgment on such question, and the said Court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case.”
Judgement: – With this regards the court disposed of the appeal of the said Appellant.
Conclusion:-
In the light of the above case the court interprets the validity of section 4(1) of Prohibition of Associations Dangerous to Public Peace Act. Moreover the court was not satisfied that a decision on the constitutional question raised by the Petitioner is necessary for the disposal of the case.
Hence the court disallowed the appeal.
