ALI HUSAIN Vs. LACHMI NARAIN MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad of an acquittal by a Magistrate of five persons who were charged under Section 186, I.P.C. The complaint was made by the Subordinate Judge. The Magistrate recorded no evidence, but he made an order on 8 August 1931 setting forth the facts of the case and stating that the contention on behalf of the defence was an argument of law. The facts set forth were as follows: The said Lachmi Narain has been declared an insolvent on 14 September, 1927. In execution proceeding the request was to arrest Lachmi Narain. Lachmi Narain was arrested on 4 June 1931. On 5 June, 1931 Lachmi Narain was put up before Court which had ordered the arrest. The Court ordered a peon to take Lachmi Narain to the latter's house and realise the decretal amount. The peon took Lachmi Narain to his (Lachmi Narain s) house. Lachmi Narain while going to his house got into the shop of Lalman and refused to accompany the process server. The accused obstructed the process server doing his duty of taking Lachmi Narain to Court.

(2.) Now the offence of Section 186, I.P.C, was a summons case and the procedure of the Magistrate should have been governed by Clause 20, Criminal P.C. The accused had appeared on this date and under Section 242 the Magistrate should have stated the substance of the accusation to the accused and asked if they had any cause to show why they should not be convicted. Under Section 243 if the accused admitted the offence, they might have been convicted; but that is not the case here. The accused pleaded that the acts alleged formed no offence. The duty of the Magistrate therefore lay under Section 244 to hear all the evidence in support of the prosecution. The language is compulsory and says: The Magistrate shall...take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(3.) There were eleven witnesses named in the complaint and it was the duty of the Magistrate to take the evidence of these eleven witnesses. The Magistrate did not take the evidence of any of these wit-, nesses apparently as the order sheet is silent on this point, but the Magistrate proceeded to write an order ending with the words: I therefore discharge the accused, this being a summons case.