SHEODENI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, who are contractors by profession, were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Biharsharif under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to one year's further rigorous imprisonment each. The learned Judge directed that out of the fines, if realised, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was to be paid to the complainant. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Patna upheld the conviction. As to the sentence he set aside punishment of imprisonment and maintained the fine. The present application is directed against this conviction and sentence.

(2.) To the west of the main road of Rajgir near the famous kunds there was a sangat on ghairmazrua malik plot No. 5028 known as the Sangat of Rajauli Mahant consisting of a few rooms, verandahs and a compound wall made of bricks and muds with fixtures and furniture. The sangat was managed by Bhagwan Das, the complainant, on behalf of the Mahanth. On 20-10-56 the petitioners were found demolishing the walls and other structures of the sangat with the help of 30 or 40 labourers. The case of Bhagwan Das is that when he protested against this high-handedness he was pushed away by the petitioners. The materials of the demolished wall, the fixtures and the furniture were thereafter loaded in carts and carried away from the site by the petitioners. According to the complainant, this Act of vendalism and loot was committed on the Pretext that a car park was to be built on the site in view of the impending visit of the Prime Minister of India am some foreign dignitaries to Rajgir. It is said that work of demolition continued for two days more and the major portion of the Sangat was demolished. A complaint in regard to the occurrence was filed by Bhagwan Das (P. W. 1) before the Sub-divisional Officer at Bihar on 22-10-56. The learned Sub-divisional Officer sent the case for inquiry to Mr. S. Roy (P. W. 6), a Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector. The officer visited the place and held a local inquiry. His report was that Plot No. 5028 had been taken up for improvement of the Kund area to enable construction of a car park by the District Engineer, Patna, that allotment of fund for the construction work had been received from the Government and that steps had been taken to acquire the land under the land acquisition proceedings. He also reported that a tender for construction of a car park at the site of the Rajauli Sangat had also been invited by the District Engineer, Patna, and that Sheodeni Singh, one of the peti-tioners, had filed tender for the work. According to the inquiring officer, the tender had not been finally accepted nor any work order issued and hence the petitioners had no right to demolish the structures. On the spot the inquiring officer found no building except one thatched house consisting of two sub-rooms thatched with straw. Around these two rooms he found traces of portions of the demolished buildings which had been removed. He came to the conclusion that the allegation that Sheodeni Singh and others actually demolished some portions of the buildings of the sangat without obtaining permission from anybody was true and that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners under Sections 380, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. In his report, the inquiring officer referred to a letter dated 9-11-1956 (Exhibit 3) from the District Engineer of Patna in which the latter had stated that although he had recommended Sheodeni Singh for the work of constructing the car Park the tenders were still pending and no order to start the work had till then been issued to him. He further stated that no order had been issued at all for demolition of the huts etc. of the Mahanth of Rajauli. He clearly stated that if damage to the property of the Mahanth had been done by the contractors it had been done at their own risk and responsibility. As regards the acquisition proceedings he observed that they were still pending and that possession had not been granted to him by the land acquisition officer to enable him to start the work on that land.

(3.) The Magistrate before whom the trial proceeded took the view that a Prima facie case of dacoity under Section 395 had been made out against the petitioners. He thereupon committed them to the court of session with the result stated above.