KRUPASINDHU PANIGRAHI Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petnr. was served with a notice under Schedule 12, Cr. P. C., to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond to be of good behaviour under Schedule 10, Cr. P. C. for a period of three years. Along with the petnr. two other persons were also impleaded & served with similar notices & an enquiry M. c. No. 647/47 was started against the three persons by the Sub -divisional Mag., Ghumusur. The Police filed a report under Section 110 (d), (e) & (f), Cr. P. C. against these three persons on 24 -9 -47 & cited 84 instances of acts of misbehaviour & offences alleged to have been committed or threatened to have been committed by one or the other of the persons named in the report covering a period of over twelve years commencing from 1935. The Police also cited 140 witnesses to be examined to prove the various acts of high -handedness alleged to have been committed at different times by these persons. The Mag. drew up proceedings on the 4th November in the following terms :

(2.) ALTHOUGH the order recites that a copy of the Police report is enclosed it is asserted by the petnr. and it is not denied by the learned Advoeate Gcneral appearing for the Crown that no such copy has been served upon the petnr. The peter, appeared in due course & applied to the Deputy Mag. to take up his case separately & not to try him jointly with the two others as he apprehended that prejudice would be caused to him. He also prayed that his personal attendance may be waived & that he may be permitted to appear through a pleader as he was sick & was not able to attend the proceedings which were likely to occupy a long time. The Deputy Mag. dismissed his petn. & rejected both his prayers on the ground that the Police report showed that the petnr. & the two other persons charged with him were his associates & that there would be no prejudice or illegality in a joint trial. He rejected the petnr.'s prayer for exemption from personal attendance on the ground that the petnr. not being an accused person, Schedule 40A, Criminal P. C. did not apply. It is against this order that the petnr. has now come up in revn. to this Ct. The petnr. also moved the Dist. Mag. before filing his revn. petn. in this Ct., & the Addl. Dist. Mag who heard his appln.,, has recommended to this Ct. that the order of the Deputy Mag. should be quashed & that a separate trial should be ordered as, in his opinion, a joint enquiry would be prejudicial to the persons proceeded against:

(3.) MR . K. Patnaik, appearing for the petnr. has placed before me a tabular statement of the acts alleged against the petar. alone & those he is supposed to have been responsible for along with the two other accused persons. The specific acts attributed to the petnr. are Items 1, 12, 16, 18, 45, 47, 52, 63, 69, 70, 79 & 84 of the tabular statement. These acts range over a period of twelve years. (After discussing these items His Lordship proceeded.)