LILABATI KANJILAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued upon an application of tour persons against whom a proceeding was pending in the Court of the Magistrate at Ranaghat and a charge under Section 342, I.P.C. has been framed. The prayer of those petitioners was for quashing the proceeding

(2.) THE background in which this proceeding was commenced appears from the materials on the record and also certain other records to which reference has been made in the petition upon which the Rule was issued. Those are that one Lilabati Kanjilal, the first petitioner, is a teacher in a school named Nasra Girls' School at Ranaghat in the district of Nadia. The S.D.O., Ranaghat, is also the Administrator of that School. The said Lilabati Kanjilal had been served with a notice of termination of her employment as a teacher of that school on 29th of September 1.963 giving her three months notice for the termination to take effect from 1st of January 1964. The said notice was given by the S.D.O., Ranaghat, as an Administrator of the Nasra Girls' High School. Lilabati Kanjilal took steps for avoiding that termination of her employment in the school and it appears that a letter, dated 26th of December 1963 was written by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, to the Administrator, Nasra Girls' High School requesting the latter to maintain 'status quo' in respect of the teacher pending further investigation by the District inspectors of Schools, Nadia and final orders of the Board in that respect. In that letter it had also been mentioned that it appeared from the Director of Public Instruction's report that the aforesaid termination of service of Sm. Lilvbati Kanjilal, an Assistant Headmistress of the School was irregular as un charge sheet was issued against her before the notice was served. Copies of these letters appeared to have been sent to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, Lilabati Kanjilal and Satyapriya Roy, General Secretary, All Bengal Teachers' Association. It was alleged that on 2nd January 1964 at about 7 A.M. the said Lilabati Kanfilal had gone to the school and wanted to sign the attendance register of the teachers by showing to the Headmistress a copy of the letter of the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, abovementioned. The Headmistress of the school Sm. Usha Majumdar objected to Lilabati Kanjilal's signing the attendance register. At about 8 A.M. that morning three other teachers of Nasra Higher Secondary School, Ajit Kumar Sanyal, Hiralal Kritanya and Chandra Binode Das first went into the office room of the school and then also entered into the room of the Headmistress and sat down in the chairs in front of the Headmistress, Sm. Usha Majumdar and insisted that Sm. Lilabati Kanjilal should be allowed to sign the attendance register and detained the Headmistress, Sm. Usha Mujumdar by such insistence and also roused fear in the mind of Sm. Usha Majumdar. After some time Sm. Usha Majumdar could go out of that room on her giving the assurance that she would get the orders of the Administrator of the school (bat very morning.

(3.) ON those allegation Sm. Usha Majumdar as the Headmistress wrote a letter and addressed it to the S.D.O. and Administrator of the school on 2nd of January 1964. That letter appears to have been forwarded by the S.D.O. to the officer -in -charge, Ranaghat police station, for to taking necessary action. The police filled up a First Information Report on that information and started a case for alleged offences under Sections 143, 448 and 342, I.P.C. and also under Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act. Order sheet of the learned Magistrate shows that on 3rd of January 1964, Ajit Sanyal, Hiralal Kritanya and Chandra Binode Das were produced before him under arrest. They moved for being enlarged on bail, but it was strongly opposed by the Court sub -inspector. Bail was refused by the learned Magistrate because he thought that the allegations were very serious. On 4th January 1964, Sm. Lilabati Kanjilal was produced under arrest. She also prayed for bail and also the other three accused persons on that date and it was opposed by the Court sub -inspector on the ground.