BAIDYANATH PRASAD Vs. AWADHESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No- 471 of 1963 has been beard along with Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1963 as they both arise out of the same proceedings. Petitioner Baidya Nath Prasad of Teghra Bazar in the sub-division of Begusarai filed a written report at the Teghra police station on the 30th of November 1959 at about 7 p. m. stating that sometime before the report, when the propaganda van of Sunlight and Lifebuoy Soap of Hindustan Lever Brothers, gave a film show in front of the gaddi of the complainant, a big crowd collected there. The informant was present there among others as also the two accused Awadhesh Singh and Gangotri Singh of village Madhurapur, Bichlatola within police station Teghra. The accused came near the gaddi of the complainant and were suspiciously looking round like miscreants. The complainant asked them to sit peacefully or to leave the place. Accordingly, they sat in the gaddi for some time. While others were engaged in witnessing the show, the two accused drew near the place where cash was kept and each one of them stole a sum oil Rs. 100/- out of it. They were detected, however, while they were stealing the amount and were apprehended and ultimately the money was recovered from their persons. Soon thereafter some people of Madhurapur, village of the accused, came there and began to raise hulla. Emboldened by their presence the accused also joined in mating the hulla and threatened the complainant with dire consequence because he caught the two accused and recovered the money stolen by them. The complainant was terrified at their threatening attitude and closed the shop. His brother also fired two blank shots from their gun and then the mob dispersed. The sub-inspector of police of Teghra police station took up investigation and submitted chargesheet against the accused under section 380, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused were tried by Sri M. Roy Munsif Magistrate, Begusarai who found the accused guilty of the offence with which they were charged. It appears, however, that the Magistrate called for a report from the probation Officer as to the character and conduct of the accused persons, and the probation Officer, Begusarai, Sri Prayag Singh, submitted a report stating that the accused belonged to a respectable family, owned a large area of agricultural lands and there was no previous conviction against them. It is stated that he reported further that the two accused were students of degree course belonging to G. D. Singh College at Begusarai and L. S. College at Muzaffarpur. The Magistrate without any notice to the complainant accepted the report and released the accused after giving them due admonition that they must not repeat the offence in future, apparently under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958).

(3.) When the complainant learnt of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, he preferred an appeal against it alleging that the accused were not men of good antecedents nor of respectable family, and that the order was arbitrary and the report of the Probation Officer was biased and influenced by extraneous considerations. The appeal having been preferred under section 11 (2) of the Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr who heard the appeal, dismissed it holding that no appeal could be made in a case under section 380, Indian Penal Code by the complainant as the prosecution in such a case was conducted by the State. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, an appeal could be preferred in such a case only by the convicted person who was aggrieved with the order or by the State conducting the prosecution; but the private party who merely filed a complaint had no locus standi to prefer an appeal against the order of the Magistrate passed under section 3 of the Act. The complainant, Baidya Nath Prasad accordingly filed the above application in revision to this Court challenging the correctness of the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the maintainability of the appeal. An application was also filed for suitable action against the Probation Officer Sri Prayag Singh. This Court issued notice in both the applications and the one relating to the prayer for action against Sri Prayag Singh was ordered to be treated as an original criminal miscellaneous case inasmuch as it concerned the prayer for proceedings in contempt of Court against him.