KING Vs. K N CHACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued to K. N. Ohachan, a merchant of Muzaffarpur, to show cause why an order of discharge in a case in which he was the accused should not be set aside and the prosecution proceeded with. Notice was also issued to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, and to the Advocate -General.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: On 19th March 1947 Mr. Sukh Nandan Thakur, Market Inspector of the Rationing Office at Muzaffarpur, Submitted a report to the Sub -diviaional Officer, stating that on nth he had detected a case against N. Ahmed, Godown Manager, which disclosed that the latter, in league with the stockist E. N, Chaohan, had been "carrying on the smuggling business of the Government Godown" and that at 7 A. M. on 18th June Chaohan bad visited him and offered him Es, 100 to suppress the evidence against him. Chachan also offered "to give any statement required against the Godown Manager." Thakur stated that this happened in the presence of Ramakant Mishra of village Patore, and also reported that he had refused the bribe and that Chaohan had then left, saying he would return in the after, noon. Thakur requested the Sub -divisional Officer to "get this case detected in the presence of a Magistrate." On this the Sub -divisional Officer endorsed: "Mr. E. K. Shukla will please take necessary action." Mr. Shukla i3 a Magistrate. On the following day, Thakur submitted a further report to the Sub -divisional Officer reiterating the substanoe of his first report, and adding that N. Ahmad, Chaohan and the latter's servant Nandu were in league; that Chaohan had visited his office on the afternoon of the 19th and had promised to see him at his residence the follow ing morning. By arrangement with Thakur Mr. Shukla arrived at the former's residence at 7 A. M, on the morning of 20fch, He was accompanied by Mr. K. N. Sharma and Kishun Prasad Singh. Two other persons, Eambinode Mishra and Ramakant Mishra were also called in. These two latter seated themselves on a ohauki in the room in which Thakur was awaiting the arrival of Chaohan, Shukla and Sharma were in the verandah behind the shutter of the door leading into this room. At 8 a. m. Chaohan arrived and is reported to have said "Please save myself and Nandu. Nandu is my own man. I will ask Nandu to give any statement against Manager Saheb." It is said that he then handed Thakur a ourrenoy note for ES. 100 which Tha -kur placed on the chauki. At this point of time Shukla and Sharma entered the room. Chachan admitted his guilt, fell at Shukla's feet and asked him to save him. He was taken into custody and produced before the Sub -divisional Magistrate with a written report by Shukla suggesting a prosecution under Section 161/116, Penal Code. The order -sheet shows that the Sub -divisional Magistrate treated this report as a com -' plaint by Shukla and took cognizance the same day. The complaint is set out in extenso:

(3.) ON the margin of this letter is an endorsement initialled by the District Magistrate, dated 28rd August 1947: "Public Prosecutor should be requested to examine the record carefully and give his considered opinion." Why the District Magistrate should have considered it desirable to have the Public Prosecutor's opinion in this case after the record had already been cent to Government and returned to the trying Magistrate, it is difficult to understand. However, the record was sent to the Public Prosecutor, and on 18th September, he submitted a report to the District Magistrate. The opening paragraph is as follows: