| CASE NAME | Mir Hasan Khan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 60 |
| CITATION | ILR 30 PAT 152 |
| COURT | Patna High Court |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice Shearer |
| PETITIONERS | Mir Hasan Khan |
| RESPONDENT | State of Bihar |
| DECIDED ON | decided on 21st December, 1950 |
INTRODUCTION
There have been crimes committed against the state since the beginning of time, and laws have been approved in response to protect and defend the state. The crime we are discussing includes the conduct of war, insurrection, sedition, and numerous other offenses. The state has provided examples of what constitutes an infraction against undermining the integrity and sovereignty of the state. If criminal conduct disrupts public order, peace, or integration in any way, it should be considered an offense against the state and government. The offenses against the State are covered by Sections 121–130 of Part VI of the Indian Penal Code 1860. States, believing that every citizen is obligated to submit to the authority of the State and pay homage to it, have created laws to protect themselves and their interests.
Section 124A was used in India to present sedition. In essence, sedition refers to the slander or defamation of the government, which is the establishment power of the law. Traditionally, sedition refers to a build-up of disobedience to the government. In this sense, sedition is misconduct against the community that frequently encourages injustice. The main components of Section 124A are as follows: there must be an intentional act of defaming, stirring up, or seeking to create a state of estrangement against the Government of India. Words, either written or spoken, signs or apparent portrayals can do this.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Due to their involvement in what has been called an insurrection, the applicants were prosecuted. On March 20, 1947, Kamta Singh, a havildar, was summoned to testify in the courtroom of Mr. Bishwambhar Chaudhuri, the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gaya. Mr. Chaudhuri prosecuted this havildar for contempt of court and fined him Rs. 100 as a result of an incident that happened. Since Kamta Singh was unable to pay the fine right away, Mr. Chaudhuri locked him up rather than allowing him more time to do so. Mr. Chaudhuri walked down from the dais and personally transferred the havildar to the hajat when the constable or constables on duty in his Ct. refused to do so. The havildars and constables in Gaya were deeply incensed by this act. They resolved to go on strike starting on August 23, 1947, at one of the meetings that followed. The police union wrote the superintendent of police a telegraph informing him of the decision.
A police strike broke out in Gaya, Bihar, in March 1947 as tensions between the local communities increased. Ramanand Tewari came to Gaya on March 21 and spoke with local Congressmen and police chiefs. After the strike was decided upon on March 23, constables in Gaya left their positions while the treasury’s armed guards continued to work. Although the impact on the sub-treasuries varied, subdivisions like Nawada and Jehanabad joined the strike. Sergeant J.G. Lacey was stopped by striking constables on March 24 while attempting to fetch handcuffs from the armory. On March 25, Tewari and the striking police officers spoke at a public gathering in Gaya. Constables in Patna met to show sympathy for the strikes in Gaya, but they fought with the local police. The constables surrendered when British troops from Dinapur interfered, but some, including Barhamdeo Singh, managed to flee to Gaya with firearms and ammunition, inspiring other stations to join the attack.
On March 27, an armed confrontation broke out in Gaya when the Bihar Regiment surrounded the police perimeter and the treasury. Following a brief gunfight that resulted in the deaths of three constables, the striking constables and havildars submitted. Tensions increased in Monghyr, where Indradeo Singh, a different strike leader, encouraged police to capture the armory, sparking a confrontation with the armed forces. Constables from Jamalpur eventually joined the Monghyr walkout, although miscommunication between the factions resulted in friendly fire before the strike was put down on March 28.
On March 27, Ramanand Tewari addressed the striking constables in Chapra; nevertheless, the armory was not taken by force thanks to the actions of Sergeant Major Chandra Deo Singh and Jamadar Manzoor Khan. Later, troops brought order back. With the aid of military troops, plans to move the strike to neighboring regions, including Shahabad and Arrah, were thwarted, preventing significant disruptions to operations at important locations like the Treasury. By March 29th, the government had sent in forces to restore order and stop the strike from getting worse. The strike had mostly been put down throughout the region, with little effect outside of Gaya, Patna, and Monghyr.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the appellants are liable under Section 121 of IPC for waging war against the king?
- Whether this act can be held liable under sedition law?
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES
Arguments from the petitioner
It is insufficient evidence to prove a conviction on this kind of accusation if the accused had lied to get hold of the armory and then utilized that armory’s weapons and ammo against the King’s troops when they were asked to turn it in. It must also be demonstrated that the seizure of the armory was a prearranged operation and that their goal in opposing the King’s troops was to overpower and defeat them before continuing on and crushing any additional resistance they might encounter. This process should continue until the movement’s leaders either succeeded in seizing control of the government’s machinery or those who did so gave in to the demands of their loaders.
Arguments from the respondent
The prosecution primarily relied on statements made by Ramanand Tewary at the meeting he addressed in Gaya on March 25, 1947, as well as statements he made at two of the three police stations he visited the following morning on his way to Patna and later that day, by his lieutenant Indradeo Singh to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Monghyr, to demonstrate that the conspiracy’s promoters intended to achieve their goals by using criminal force. Ramanand Tewari is reported to have remarked in one instance that he and his accomplices intended in the sanahas that the sub-inspectors of the Bikram and the Bihta police stations immediately after he and his companions left.
JUDGMENT
The accusation of conspiracy that was brought up in each of the three trials was one of conspiracy to commit an offense under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, not a conspiracy to conduct an offense under the Police Act. Therefore, it’s important to distinguish between the applicators who encouraged other constables to rebel and the ones who just left their services in response to such provocation. If Ramanand Tewari is found guilty of this offense in criminal appeal No. 584 of 1949, he will serve a harsh six-month jail sentence; his conviction on the other charges, however, must be overturned. The accused in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1949, who constituted themselves into a committee of action and attended to and helped Ramanand Tewari, Brahmadeo Singh, Brijnandan Singh, and Suraj Saran Upadhyaya, who were on the truck in which Ramanand Tewari drove between Patna police stations, encouraging constables to desert their posts, are the ones who are blatantly guilty of this charge. Since the trial court did not impose a separate sentence, the convictions of these eight appellants on this charge will stand, and they will each be sentenced to six months of harsh imprisonment. The remaining convictions for these applications will be overturned. This amendment applies, and their appeal is denied. The other applicants’ appeal is granted, their convictions and sentences are overturned, and they will immediately be freed and placed back on the streets.
CONCLUSION
The matter came up in the 1947 police strike in Gaya, Bihar, where armed police constables left their positions and tried to take government armories (Mir Hasan Khan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 60). Influenced by wider political turmoil, the constables were motivated by individuals such as Ramanand Tewari to participate in protests and go on strike. The protest descended into violence as the constables seized guns and engaged in combat with the armed forces. Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) charged Mir Hasan Khan and others with waging war against the government. The court examined whether their activities might be considered acts of disobedience or rebellion by disgruntled workers or if they could be considered the conduct of war. The defense contended that rather than being a planned attempt to topple the government, the strike was just a protest against working conditions.
Although the constables’ acts were grave, the Patna High Court decided that they did not qualify as “waging war” against the government as defined by Section 121 IPC. The court determined the strike’s purpose was to voice complaints rather than overthrow the government. Even though using force and seizing weapons was illegal, the main goal was to improve working conditions rather than spark a political revolt. Consequently, the accusations made under Section 121 were not upheld. This case is important because it helps define the boundaries between acts of protest or revolt and those that fall under the category of government waging war. The verdict established a precedent for future readings of Section 121 IPC by emphasizing that not all violent acts against governmental apparatus are considered attempts to overthrow the government.
