SRIPATI DULEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Bankura to show cause why the order passed by a Magistrate committing these petitioners to the Court of Session for trial for offences under Sections 147 and 436, Penal Code, should not be quashed.

(2.) IT appears that information was lodged at the Thana on 20 -8 -1949, by Rashik Dome alleging that offences under Sections 143 and 436, Penal Code had been committed by a number of persons. The police after an enquiry sent up charge sheet only under Sections 147, Penal Code, against all these petitioners. After examination of 6 of the prosecution witnesses the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence disclosed a case under Sections 436, Penal Code, and apparently he expressed his decision to enquire into the matter under the provisions of chap, XVIII Criminal P. C. There was a prayer on behalf of the de -fence that as the charge sheet had been submitted under Sections 147, Penal Code, they were not prepared for cross -examination at that stage. Thereafter some more witnesses were examined in chief and after 11 witnesses had been examined in chief they were all cross -examined after which the learned Magistrate examined the accused. On 18 -7 -1950, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 147 and 436, Penal Code and passed the following order:

(3.) TAKING the second point for consideration first we think it sufficient to say for the purpose of this case that after going through the evidence recorded and considering Mr. Dutt's argument, we are unable to accept his contention that the evidence is such that no reasonable man can conclude therefrom that an offence under Sections 436, Penal Code, was committed by the accused person. Whether if and when the case goes to Sessions, the Jury as the Judges of facts would accept the evidence as satisfactory or not, is a matter which we need not consider and on that we express no opinion. We express no opinion at allas regards the merits of evidence except saying that we are unable to accept Mr. Dutt's extreme contention noted above.