EMPEROR Vs. BHAGELU DOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision on behalf of the Local Government asking that Bhagelu Dom s conviction under Section 22, Sub-section 1, Clause (c), of the Criminal Tribes Act be set aside or a new trial on a fresh charge be directed.

(2.) BHAGELU Dom is a member of a criminal tribe which has been notified under Section 10 of the Act. Under Clause (6) of that section it was necessary for him to notify his place of residence and any charge or intended change of residence and any absence or intended absence from his residence, to the Police. The rules have been issued under Section 20 of the Act for the purposes and objects of the Act itself, and in respect to the present convict the rules which apply to him are those which were issued under Section 20, sub Section 2, Clause (d). Rule 8 (a) is the rule applicable. Under it every registered member of a criminal tribe in respect of which a notification has been issued under Section 10 (b) shall notify in person to the officer in charge of the Police station, within the limits of which he is for the time being residing, his place of residence and any change or intended change of residence and any absence or intended absence from his residence. If the new place of residence is within the jurisdiction of another Police station, a report of the new place of residence must be made in person within seven days of arrival to the officer in charge of the Police fetation within the limits of which the new place of residence is situate. The facts are as follows: BHAGELU was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment which be served in the jail at Gorakhpur. On the expiry of his term when released from jail he went to the Police Station at Gorakhpur (Kotwali) and reported himself. His bonne, that is, his place of residence was in a village within the limits of Police station Khampur. He was directed to report himself at Khampur Police Station. He failed to do this. He did not go home but went away to Patna. He, therefore, if the jail is to be deemed as the place of his residence at the time of his release, was changing his place of residence either for his own home in the Khampur Police Circle or for Patna, and it was his duty to report this change of residence or his intended change of residence. If on the other hand it is deemed that his old home at Khampur was still his residence, if he intended to go to Patna, it was still his duty to report himself and to give information of his intended change of residence at the Khampur Police Station. He failed to do this. Whatever view one may take of the facts, it is quite clear that he failed to, comply with the terms of the notification, and he, therefore, committed an offence which falls under Section 22, sub Section 2, and not under Section 22, sub Section 1, which is the section under which the Assist ant Sessions Judge has convicted him. The decision of the Court below is, therefore, wrong in so far as the conviction has: been held under Section 22, Sub-section 1, Clause (c). The conviction in view of the previous convictions could only have been under Section 22, Sub-section 2, Clause (6), the maximum sentence for which is one of one year together with a fine. I, therefore, allow the application to this extent that I alter the conviction to one under Section 22, sub Section 2, Clause (b) of the Criminal Tribes Act. The man has already undergone something over three months imprisonment and he has, pending the decision of this application, been admitted to bail. Under these circumstances I do not think it necessary to inflict a punishment greater than that which he has already undergone. I, therefore, reduce the sentence to a term equal to that which the accused has already suffered. He, therefore, need not surrender to his bail. If not on bail, he will be released.