U. BITHIANG MALNGIANG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council court) Order, 1954 by five persona who have been convicted by the judicial Officer, District Council Court, United Khasi Jaintia Hills, Shillong under Section 342, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - each in default six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts alleged against the petitioners are that on the evening of the 6th August, 1960 while P. W. 2 U Kynthok was making an announce merit in the village WahKhen at the instance of P. W. 9 U Shiap Sirdar that there was no epidemic at Laltlyng Kot and that the villagers could attend. the Bazar there, he and his two companions P. W. C U Danlal and P. W. 7 U Kain who accompanied him as well as P. W. 3 U Ngiah were arrested, tied and taken to Smit by the 15th accused and kept in the Siem's hajat and on the following day were released on bail by the Siena of Khyrim, The defence case is that the four persons above threatened to kil Ka We Ka Wep and so they were taken to the Siem as they would not submit to the jurisdiction of the Durbar. The Judicial Officer of the District Council Court convicted and sentenced the five accused appellants as already stated above.

(3.) THE case under Section 342, Indian Penal Code stands on a different footing. There is no bar to the trial by the Subordinate District Council Court of the offences under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, as Rule 21 noes not apply to such cases and under R. 18 the Subordinate District Council Court was competent to try an offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. The District Council Court thus could transfer to its file the case under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. Dr. Medhi, however contends that the accused have been prejudiced a great extent by the joint trial by the District Council Court. When the District Council Court could, not try an offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, obviously the accused were prejudiced in their trial for the offence under Section 342 also when both the charges were tried together. In the ordinary course thus we would have allowed, the revision, quash the order of the District Council Court and order retrial, But having regard to the nature of the offence and the punishment awarded by the court, we do not think that It is a case where we can send it bade for trial. The offence is that the accused took four persons to the Smit and kept them in the hajat of the Stem till they were released by the Siem on ball. They might have only asked these persons to go to the Smit under the order of the Siem. Under these circumstance It is not a case where a retrial should be ordered. We accordingly allow this revision and set aside the order of the Judicial officer, District Council Court. Fine if paid, will be refunded.