SUMERMAL JAIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Motion No. 39 of 1961, by which he set aside the order of discharge of the 11 petitioners by the First Class Magistrate, Sri K.P. Dutta, in G. R. Case No. 1054 of 1959 and directed that they should be committed to the Court of Session to take their trial under Sections 395/342/120B.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to deal with the facts at great length. One Sagarmaall Bhatia, who was examined as P. W. 2, was the local Agent of Messrs. Duff Mills Agencies of Calcutta, (hereinafter to be referred to as Duff and Co.) a firm of jute merchants, with their local office at Badarghat. Petitioner No. 3, Ramesh Chandra Debnath, who is also a jute merchant, and used to supply jute to various other merchants had entered into an agreement with the said Sagarmall Bhatia in November, 1959 to supply 3,000 maunds of jute to Duff and Co. within that month and he had received several thousands of rupees as advance and had also supplied lot of jute before 24 -11 -59 The petitioner No. 1 Sumermall Jain, is another respectable jute merchant having his office and Godown in Badarghat. The prosecution case was that on 24 -11 -59, a conspiracy was entered into between Ramesh Chandra Debnath, Sumermall Jain, Jetmal Chhajar Petitioner No. 2, Rai Chand Baid, petitioner No. 5, and the approver Ram Ballav (P. W. 1) for the purpose of appropriating Duff and Co's moneys and with this object the said five persons met in the Godown of Sumermall Jain at Badarghat on 25 -11 -59 at 11 -00 a.m. and it was decided at the meeting that Ramesh Debnath should call at the Office of Duff and Co. and represent that about 500 to 600 maunds of jute were available at Mohanpur and that unless advance of money was made to Ramesh Debnath this stock might not be available thereafter. The further case was that Ramesh Debnath came back later and reported that Duff and Co.'s men would themselves go to Mohanpur with him and purchase the stock on payment of money. Then, he was instructed that after the purchase he should arrange to send the purchased jute to the Godown of Sumermall at Badarghat. After this, he went to Mohanpur with Duff and Co.'s men namely, P. Ws. 3, 6 and 10 in two lorries - - TRL Nos. 365 and 314 in the afternoon of 25 -11 -59 and about 200 and odd maunds of jute were purchased by him on behalf of Duff and Co. from 6 or 7 merchants at Mohanpur including P. W. 8 and P. W. 11, for which money was paid by Duff and Co.'s men into Ramesh's hands. Then the two lorries were loaded with the purchased jute and the challans for the jute were handed over to the two drivers of the lorries, namely, petitioners 8 and 9 by Duff and Co.'s men P. Ws. 6 and 10 and the two lorries started with the jute and P. W. 3, the Durwan of Dufi and Co. also accompanied the jute in one of the lorries and the two lorries arrived at Arundhutinagar drop gate at about 11 -00 p.m. Sagarmall Bhatia and one Abhaya Chand Darsani (P. Ws. 2 and 5) met the lorries at the gate and at the request of P. W. 3, they also boarded the lorries. The two drivers, however, instead of taking the jute to the Office of Duff and Co. at Badarghat drove the two lorries inside the Godown of Sumermall Jain and there Sumermall Jain forcibly pulled down Sagarmall Bhatia (P. W. 2), from the lorry, while Rai Chand Baid and Jetmall Chhajar were said to have pulled down Abhya Chand Darsani (P. W. 5), and petitioners 6 and 11, namely, Narayan Choudhury and Sattar Sahani were said to have pulled down P. W. 3 and they were said to have been threatened with death by Sumermall and they were confined in a room till about 1 -30 a.m. In the meantime, the two lorries were unloaded of the jute on the orders of Sumermall. Then P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were released at 1 -30 a.m. They heard Sumermall asking the two drivers to drive the two lorries into the compound of Duff and Co. P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5, thereupon rushed to the Duff and Co.'s premises and prevented the gate from being opened. This is the case against petitioners 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11. As for the remaining petitioners, Chandanmal Sethia (petitioner 4), Pran Ballav Debnath (petitioner 7) and Bimal Dutta (petitioner 10), there was no specific case against them by the prosecution. Chandanmal Sethia, was stated to have been present in Sumermall's godown when P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were said to have been forcibly dragged down from the truck, Pran Ballav was said to have accompanied P. W. 1 in a jeep to Mohanpur in the night of 25 -11 -1959, where they were said to have met Ramesh Debnath and where the approver was said to have asked Ramesh that he should manage to take away the duplicate challan from Duff and Co.'s men at Mohanpur. Pran Ballav has not had anything to do with this and it is not part of the charge and further the taking away of the duplicate challan is not part of the charge against any of the petitioners. As for petitioner 10 Bimal Dutta, none of the witnesses appear to have spoken about his part in any of the offences.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, who dealt with the case set aside the order of discharge and stated that the Magistrate dealt with the case as if the accused persons were standing their trial before him and had weighed the evidence as if he had to see that the accused persons had committed the offence and thereby he had taken over the function of the Sessions Court which was wrong. He then dealt with the evidence and the documents himself in paragraphs 9 to 13 of his order and he was satisfied that there was prima facie evidence to show that the petitioners Sumermal, Jetmal, Ramesh Chandra Debnath, Rai Chand Baid and the approver Ram Ballav Maudhana had entered into a conspiracy to appropriate the money and that in pursuance of that conspiracy, the petitioners Gopal Chandra Das and Upendra Debnath took the two trucks containing the jute of Duff and Co. inside the godown of Sumermall and that the petitioners Sumermall, Jetmal, Ramesh Chandra Debnath and Chandanmal Sethia, illegally detained P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 and that all the 11 petitioners had committeed dacoity by taking away the jute of Duff and Co. and he therefore directed that all the petitioners should be committed to the Session to take their trial under Sections 395/342/120B, I.P.C. Against that order the petitioners have come up in revision.