The object of the Act is expressly to provide speedy trial of certain offences committed in a specified area and during a specified period because " it is expedient in the interests of the security of the State, the maintenance of public peace and tranquillity " to do so. The gaps, if any, we are confident would be filled up by the executive arm of the government itself inasmuch as the attainment of constitutional goals and values enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution is the conjoint responsibility of the three organs of the State i.

In our view the aforesaid exercise of appreciating the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge is wholly unjustified. Freedom or choice in the matter of speech and expression is absolutely necessary for an individual to develop his personality in his own way and this is one reason, if not the only reason, why under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution every citizen has been guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression. Such being the object, a distinction made between the cases were the trials had been concluded and the cases where the trials had not been concluded, is not a distinction which has any rational relation to that object.

In this regard, we would like to clarify that it is not the intention of the Court to attempt to lay down infallible and all comprehensive directions to cover the issue at hand. " It is strange that there should be such discrepancy between the evidence of Jadunath himself and the plaintiff and Jagdamba as to what actually was said. But if Jagdamba's account such as is supported by the plaintiff himself, is true then there is no acceptable explanation as to why the plaintiff could think of going to Bugurgabad at all as he and his witnesses say, he did.

21 of the Constitution and could not have been intended for general application. 384 exercise of the right of free movement throughout the territory of India as explained above. 19(6) of the Constitution on the view that the test of reasonableness was not satisfied and not on a view that " prohibition " went beyond " restriction ". Imposition of reasonable restrictions clearly implies that the right of free movement is not entirely destroyed but that parts of the right remain.

2(m) contract carrier means such pipelines for transportation of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas by more than one entity pursuant to firm contracts for at least one year as may be declared or authorised by the Board from time to time under sub-section (3) of section 20. Indeed, all offences require speedy trial. The entire approach of the High Court appears to be as if the Court was deciding the case as to whether the accused are guilty or not. Article 120 of the Limitation Act reads: 120 of the Limition Act.

287 The argument on the question of limitation is put thus: The plaintiff, respondent herein, had knowledge of the fraudulent character of the trust deed as early as 1917 or, at any rate, during the pendency of the partition suit between Rukhmabai and Chandanlal instituted in the year 1929, and the suit filed in 1940, admittedly after six years of the said knowledge, would be barred under Art. (b) that the motion picture is not saved by any redeeming social value; and (c) that it is patently offensive because it is opposed to contemporary standards.

" It has to be noticed, however, that these observ- ations were made in the context of an argument of conflict between Art. (89) Keeping the aforementioned principles of law in mind and applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in allowing both the criminal cases filed by the accused persons thereby erred in quashing the charge sheet at the threshold. Furthermore, the Court would stress that besides Mr Meischberger, the painting showed a series of 33 persons, some of whom were very well known to the Austrian public, who were all presented in the way described above.

The court observed that Hicklin test in Regina (supra) was not accepted in the said case. " Plaintiff's witness No. 764 of the Report the learned Judge says: 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, based his decision that the impugned law did not come within the saving provisions of Art. The Court also referred to Freadman v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1) the constitutionality of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, came up for consideration, Mahajan, J.

2 has stated that Jadunath told the plaintiff that the second defendant had sold her property in Majhaul to the first defendant. stand how they went to Bugurgabad or to the other items of property to perform the ceremonies, if they ever did so. It is quite plain that the object of the Act is not simply to provide a speedy trial. It cannot be said that the object of the Act is only to provide speedy trial and that therefore as there is of no question of speedy trial in the cases where the trial had- already been concluded there is an intelligible differentia between such cases and those where the trial had not been concluded.

The classification by areas is based on disturbance in an area and the necessily of restoring peace there. , delivering the judgment of the Court, after pointing out that the question was whether the total prohibition of carrying on the business of manufacture of bidis within the agricultural season amounted to a reasonable restriction of the fundamental rights mentioned in Art. If that is so, it is a little difficult to under.

Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has raised the following submissions:- (a) There is a presumption of validity of subordinate legislation, and as long as the parent Act enables the framing of regulations they are valid. legislative, executive and the judiciary, as earlier discussed.