JAMUNA HAZRA Vs. ADYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, dated the 15th December 1964 in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1964, whereby he has directed that a complaint under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code be filed for the prosecution of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : The petitioner filed a complaint on the 23rd February 1963 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Banka, alleging that, on the 22nd February 1963, while the complainant was planting sugarcane in his Nakdi field and Sudin Hazra and Basanl Hazra were ploughing the said field, the accused persons came in a mob, variously armed, and forcibly started unyoking the bullocks from the ploughs. The petitioners protested, whereupon Adya Singh (opposite party No 1) ordered assault and one of the members of the mob, namely, Dhanesar Singh, assaulted Sudin Hazra, with a Farsa. The complainant's party then ran away to save their life and went to the Angan of Basant Hazra. The accused persons along with many others entered the angan of Basant Hazra and set fire to the house. The members of the opposite party also took away the ploughs and the buffaloes from the field of the petitioner. The motive for the assault was put pressure on the complainant to give up his claim over his Khatiam Sikmi land.

(3.) The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined the complainant (petitioner) on solemn affirmation and referred the complaint to Shri J. Pathak, Magistrate, first class, Banka, for enquiry and report. Shri J. Pathak submitted his report on the 11th April 1963. It may be stated that Sudin Hazra was examined by the doctor at Banka hospital on the 22nd February 1963 at 5 p.m. The petitioner had to file his complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate because the police was in collusion with the accused persons. It has been argued that the enquiry conducted by Shri J. Pathak was not in accordance with law. He, no doubt, inspected the place of occurrence and also made enquiries from the persons in the locality; but, in addition to this, he examined two of the prosecution witnesses and allowed the defence to cross-examine them. A reference to the report and the evidence recorded by him makes it clear that the enquiry conducted by Shri J. Pathak was more or less in the nature of trial. The concluding portion of the enquiry report was as follows :