and once in the history of India there was a trial in which the Judges were anxious to know specifically the mind of the accused when he made speeches which were alleged to be seditious. The judgments of the two learned judges were based, as expressly stated, upon points of fact and as such, much of technical law has not been established by this trial on behalf of freedom of speech. But the whole procedure adopted and the observations made by the learned judges must prove thoroughly useful to an accused in all future trials. Justice Batchelor has clearly pronounced that Government does not mean an individual or individual officers. Government is an abstract conception. Though holding this view, both the judges have not accepted generally that the condemnation of a particular service is not the condemnation of the Government established by law in India. The views they have expressed however are clear that no service can be identified with the Government established by law in British India. Justice Batchelor says.
"It was contended that the speeches could not in law offend against Sec. 124 A because the speaker's attack was made not on the Government nominatio but on the civil service
