KING Vs. MOULE BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an examination of the record of the case, Emperor v. Moula Bux and others, pending before Mr. B. K. Lai, a Magistrate ex -ercising first -class powers at Jamshedpur (C. B. Case No. 324A of 1947), a Bench of this Court issued a rule against the accused persons as also the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum, direct -ing them to Show cause why the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 15th September 1948, should not be set aside. The order of the learned Magistrate on that date was to the following effect:

(2.) A copy of the rules issued was served on the Advocate -General of Bihar on behalf of the Provincial Government so that the Provincial Government might have an opportunity of being -beard in the matter, if they so desired.

(3.) THE material facts of the case may be -shortly stated. On 7th May 1947, at about 3 P.M. there was an occurrence in the office of the Electrical Engineer inside the Tata Iron and? Steel Works at Jamshedpur. A orat information of the occurrence was given by Mr. A. R. Gupta, Electrical Engineer, on 8th May 1947,. at S P.M. This first information stated that -when Mr. Gupta and certain members of the supervising staff were in their office in connection with a Safety Committee meeting, some of the workers raided the office, damaged some properties and assaulted some of the officers. A police investigation followed and a charge -sheet against 17 accused persons was submitted on 18th June 1947. The trial commenced before -Mr. E. K, Lai on 6th July 1947, and continued on several dates. The examination and cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses concluded on 16th September 1947, by which date -one of the accused persons was dead, and the trial proceeded against the remaining 16 accused persons. On 15th September 1947, the statements of the 16 accused persons were recorded under Section 342, Criminal P. C. On 20th September 1947, some defence witnesses were examined and cross -examined. On 6th October 1947, arguments were beard, and the case was postponed till 11th October 1947, for judgment. Judgment was not, however, ready on that date, nor on the nest date fixed, which was the 18th October 1947. On 6th November 1947, an order was recorded to the effect that the accused persons -had moved the Provincial Government for with -drawal of the case. The trying Magistrate then noted as follows: Instruction on phone has been received from the Sub -Divisional Officer to adjourn the case. To 22nd November 1947. Accused as before.