STATE Vs. KULMANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the opponent, who is a member of the Socialist Party, had addressed a personal letter dated 25. 7. 1964 in a closed envelope to Sri Mathuresh Narain, Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. However, it was written on the official letter-head of the Party. It made reference to three cases - two of which had already been decided by the Magistrate, while the third one was still pending. The letter stated that in the complaint case of Alladia v. Mahkar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Seohara, the opponent had appeared as a witness for the complainant under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opponent alleged that the Magistrate did not like his appearing as a witness against the Police Sub-Inspector. He further alleged that in spite of the fact that there was prima facie evidence in the case, the Magistrate did not summon the Sub-Inspector as an accused, with the result that notwithstanding that his complaint was true, the said Alladia had to get his complaint dismissed for want of prosecution.

(2.) THE second allegation in the opponent's letter was that in the case of State v. Harsarup under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate had himself asked the accused of that case to get the opponent summoned as witness on his behalf, but when the opponent appeared in his court, it was clear from-the behaviour of the Magistrate that he was bent upon convicting the accused, so much so, that he had to take necessary steps in the matter. The opponent further stated that it was in his personal knowledge that the Superintendent of Police had got that case challaned on special recommendation, but he could not say whether any recommendation had been made to him (the Magistrate) as well.

(3.) THE third allegation was with respect to an enquiry for an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Umrao, in which the opponent himself was the complainant. According to the opponent, the said Umrao who was a lad of about 14 years, had entered the court room, when the case was called and had presented an application duly thumb marked by himself, saying that he had committed the offence and may be pardoned. However, in spite of the protest by the opponent, the Magistrate wrongly made a note thereon saying that it was the opponent, who had presented that application after taking the same from the accused. This clearly showed that the Magistrate had personal bias and hatred towards the opponent, inasmuch as he had made the said note on the application, which was entirely against the facts. The letter further stated that the Magistrate had acted in the above manner, simply because the opponent belonged to a group which was in opposition to the ruling party. It was further mentioned therein that the members of the opponent's party were always prepared to risk their lives, and during the British regime, he had himself boldly faced the frowning brows of the rulers. In the end the letter contained a threat to the effect that officials like him (Magistrate concerned) were likely to come to grief some day by getting involved in party politics.