AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—His is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of East Godavari confirming the conviction and sentence
passed upon the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s 5(b) read with Section 7(1) of Ordinance. XI of 1941 read with Explanation 2 to Section
5 of the Amending Ordinance XXVI of 1942. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 300.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in East Godavari. In the course of his duties he had to conduct the prosecution
of political offences. On the 18th November, 1942, he sent in his resignation which runs thus:
I Hereby resign my post as A.P.P. grade No. 2 partly as a protest against the repressive policy of the Government against Mahatma Gandhi and
the Congress organisation, secondly to signify my heartfelt approval of the Bombay resolution of the A.I.C.C. dated 8th August, 1942, thirdly to
take active part in the civil disobedience movement, that is, the freedom movement started by the Indian National Congress under the leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi. I request you to make arrangements immediately for the conduct of cases lest I should be suspected unnecessarily in conducting
the cases. I am handing over the furniture, books and other records belonging to the Government pertaining to my office to the S.H.O. or the C.I.
of Police.
He did not discharge any duties connected with his office subsequent to that date. He sent also a letter praying for casual leave for three days on
the very same date and went away to Cocanada on the 20th November. He handed over the books and furniture to the Station House Officer
deputed by the Circle Inspector of Police and went away to Ellore where his wife and children were. He was arrested on the 30th November in
connection with this case.
The petitioner''s case is that he did not abandon his employment and therefore he is not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Both
the Courts found that his conduct indicated that he abandoned the employment and therefore he was guilty.
Various points were raised in this petition, but the only point urged before me at the time of the hearing is that the evidence cannot be taken to
indicate that he abandoned his employment. The fact is that he did nothing in connection with his office after the date on which he sent in his
resignation till he was arrested and there is also the fact that he was not in his district in which he was employed after the 21st November till he was
arrested on the 30th of that month. It is clear from the letter of resignation that he wanted to be relieved at once and his object in asking for relief
was that he may take active part in the civil disobedience movement. The Collector did not pass orders accepting the resignation. Though the
petitioner says that he was suffering from acute dysentery he did not think it would be in convenient for him to travel to Cocanada, to go to which
place, as pointed out by the Sessions Judge, he had to cross the Godavari. His anxiety to ascertain what orders were passed shows that he was
anxious to get himself relieved. The express statements made in the letter of resignation as to the purpose for which he was tendering his resignation
and the anxiety exhibited by him to go to Cocanada in spite of his ill-health to ascertain what became of the letter, coupled with the fact that he did
not wait in the district to receive orders on his application, go to indicate that he wanted to abandon his employment immediately and did act as if
he had abandoned it. It is true that the District Magistrate issued proceedings Ex. III directing the Additional Public Prosecutor to conduct the
prosecutions which the. petitioner had to conduct, but that was because the District Magistrate had to make necessary arrangements so that the
work in Court may not suffer on account of the absence of the petitioner, especially when he had an inkling of the intentions of the petitioner from
the casual leave application received by him along with the letter of resignation. The mere fact that he was relieved from the work of conducting a
few pending cases before him could not be reasonably taken to indicate that his resignation was accepted. He is an educated man who had been
conducting prosecutions and he must and ought to have known that until his letter of resignation was accepted he could not abandon his
employment. He cannot plead ignorance of the regulations and Ordinances under which he has now been prosecuted, and he must have known the
risk involved in abandoning his employment. In. these circumstances I do not think it could be said that when he absented himself he bona fide
thought that his resignation had been accepted. It is a clear case of abandonment of his employment and in the circumstances the sentence is not
exces sive. The petition is dismissed.