Meerut Conspiracy
Meerut Conspiracy
A lesser known reason for its prominence on the British colonial map
is a controversial case in the years 1929-1933.
The trial commenced with the filing of complaint by Dr. R.A. Horton
(OSD under the Director, I.B. Home Deptt. Govt. of India) on 15th March,
1929 and on a supplementary complaint dated 11th June, 1929 against one
of the accused. The preliminary proceedings before the Magistrate at Meerut
took seven months. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions on 14th January, 1930. The prosecution took thirteen months to
complete the evidence. The recording of statements of the accused
consumed another ten months and their defence lasted for about two months.
The parties advanced arguments for over four and half months. Mr. R.L.
Yorke the then District and Sessions Judge, Meerut took five months to
write and pronounce the judgment.
On 17th January 1933, the sessions court acquitted five of the accused,
one having died, and convicted 27 others with stringent sentences; one was
transported for life; five others for 12 years; three for 10 years; three others
for 7 years; four for 5 years; six for 4 years; and the rest five for 3 years.
The convicts filed appeals in the Allahabad High Court. The last of
them was filed on 17th January, 1933. The paper books were printed and
made ready within no time and 10th April, 1933 was fixed for hearing.
However, on account of ensuing long summer vacation and on the request of
the accused themselves, the hearing was adjourned to 24th July, 1933. The
hearing commenced as scheduled before the bench presided over by Chief
Justice Sulaiman and Justice Young and it lasted for 8 working days. Sir Tej
and Sri K.N. Katju and others represented the convicts. The Crown was
defended by Mr. I. Kemp and J.P. Mitter.
The Judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice and all the
conviction were upheld, but with considerably reduced sentences.
The Bench classified the convicts into four different groups. The first
group of 12 were all members of the Communist Party of India. The second
group comprised of Sprat and Bradly who were members of Communist
Party of Great Britain. The third group consisted by six who were communist
by conviction but not members of the Communist Party. The fourth group
comprised of seven persons who were neither communists nor members of
any communist party but were simply political workers.
The trial was an outspring of the British Governments fear for the
growth of the communist idea in India. It was aimed to nip the movement in
the bud. The accused were branded as Bolsheviks. Though the trial resulted
in conviction of almost all the accused but it ended in publicising, launching
and strengthening the communist movement in the county in a gigantic way.
During the trial, the courtroom was turned into a public platform for
espousing the communist cause.
Secondly, it indicated the pace with which the justice delivery system
in those days used to dispense justice despite enormous and voluminous
evidence which was dealt with minute precision. However, the time
consumed in trial was frowned upon by the superior Court observing that it
could have been reduced with some care on part of both the accused and the
Court.
Lastly, it laid down that the magnitude of punishment or sentence was
dependent upon three basic principles i.e. (i) protection of the people; (ii)
prevention of the crime; and (iii) reformation of the offender. The
punishment awarded by the Sessions Court when tested on the anvil of these
principles, was held to be too harsh and severe particularly looking at the
fact that all the accused had already remained in jail during the entire trial
except for short period of time when some of them were admitted to bail.
The bench, while reducing the sentence, observed that the trial was
political and any severe punishment would result in confirming the belief of
the people in the political movement which was sought by the government
to be checked by the government and in creating more offenders causing
greater evil and danger to public.
Note:-The writer Justice Pankaj Mithal is a native of Meerut and he is grateful to Sri Abhishek Jain, a law
student of New Law college, Bharati Vidyapeeth deemed University, who had worked as an intern with him
and had prepared a synopsis on the case.
*(Ref: A.I.R. 1933 Alld. 690 S.H. Jhabwala and others Vs. Emperor)