SK OHID Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapur under Section 123, Criminal P. C., directing the petitioners to execute bonds for good behaviour for a period of three years, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the same period.

(2.) Proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P. C., were drawn up against these petitioners and other persons, the allegations being that they were habitual thieves, robbers, house breakers and were so dangerous and desperate that their being at large without security was hazardous to the community. A large number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and quite a fair number for the defence. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion, on a consideration of the evidence, that the allegations that these persons were habitual thieves, robbers and house breakers had been established and it was necessary for the maintenance of good behaviour that they should be ordered to execute bonds for being of good behaviour for a period of three years. Accordingly, he sent the papers to the learned Sessions Judge of Midnapore. The learned Magistrate discharged two of the persons against whom proceedings were drawn up, being of the view that the charge had not been established as against them.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate was right in his opinion that the evidence established the prosecution allegation that these persons were habitual thieves, robbers and house-breakers. He accordingly confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. In fact he went a little further than the learned Magistrate inasmuch as he even passed an order as regards the two persons whom the Magistrate had discharged holding that the evidence showed that they also were habitual thieves and robbers and accordingly passed an order against them also directing them to execute bonds for good behaviour.