MATUKI MAHTON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dumka drew up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against 22 persons. An inquiry was held by Shri B. N. Charan, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, who by his order dated the 5th June, 1962, directed all of them under Section 118 of the Code to execute bonds of Rs. 500/- each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to maintain the peace for a period of one year. Their appeal before the learned Sessions Judge failed. Seventeen of them have filed this application for revision in this Court. Five of the 22 persons have not joined them.

(2.) Sridhar Pandey (opposite party No. 2) is the only Brahmin resident of village Chandra. There was a proceeding between him on one side and some of the petitioners on the other under Section 145 of the Code with respect to the possession of plots Nos. 315 and 318 of the same village. It may be mentioned that all the petitioners are also resident of that very village. The proceeding was decided in favour of Sridhar Pandey, His case was that, after the termination of that proceeding, the petitioners became infuriated, and started harassing him and threatening to kill him. Their object in doing this was either to drive him away or to end his life. He, therefore, filed an application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 26th August, 1960. The Magistrate sent the matter for inquiry to the Police. When the police report was received, he, by his order dated the 17th September, 1960, drew up the present proceeding.

(3.) The first point which Mr. Sachchidanand has urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the Courts below have not considered the evidence properly. His grievance is that the Magistrate proceeded mainly upon his view of the characteristics of villagers belonging to the Goala community as most of the petitioners are Goalas. I do not think that this criticism is justified. The learned Magistrate was wrong to lay down characteristics of different communities because there can be no general rule of that kind. There are persons with different characteristics in all communities. For instance, the Magistrate has said that the Brahmins are pious and timid; but there may be Brahmins who are neither pious nor timid. He has said that the Goalas are over-bold and impulsive. I am quite sure that one may find Goalas who cannot be said to be over-bold or impulsive. At the same time, however, he has considered the evidence. He has not proceeded only upon his view of the characteristics of these communities.