SUDHIR CHANDRA JANA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule against the order of the Sessions Judge, Midnapore, dated 14-8-1954, by which he has ordered a further enquiry by a First Class Magistrate be made into the case under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows. One Urmila Dassi lodged a First Information Report at the police station alleging that the petitioners, along with several others, trespassed into the house of the complainant's husband, Ramanath and demanded a sum of Rs. 500.00 from Ramanath alleging that the petitioners were entitled to this amount as the costs of a litigation between Ramanath and the petitioners. Upon Ramanath's refusal to comply with the request, Ramanath was dragged and was assaulted with fists and slaps. On hearing the alarm raised by Ramanath, the informant Urmila came out of her house and saw the beating. The informant was also dragged outside by two of the petitioners, named, Sudhir and Ramesh Sudhir, assaulted her with a lathi, causing injuries on her person, while the other petitioner, Ramesh, snatched away her gold earring from her left ear, which resulted in the lobe of that ear being torn asunder.

(3.) Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the rule has argued that in the facts of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make an order for further enquiry, because this order will have the effect of nullifying the order of acquittal under Sec. 379, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to a large number of decisions of different High Courts on this point and he has come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case he has jurisdiction to make that order. I am afraid I cannot agree with the learned Sessions Judge in the view that he has taken. In the present case, the offence of which the petitioners were acquitted was under Sec. 379, Indian Penal Code and the offence in respect of which a further enquiry had been directed is one under Sec. 395. There can be hardly any doubt that the offence under Sec. 379 is one of the essential ingredients of the higher offence under Sec. 395 and if the order of acquittal of the petitioners under Sec. 379 stands, there cannot be a further enquiry of the offence under Sec. 395 without taking away the effect of the order of acquittal under Sec. 379.