LAWS(PVC)-1941-9-76

RAMSAKAL SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On September 05, 1941
RAMSAKAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur, recommending that the conviction of Ramsakal Singh under Section 9(a), Census Act, 1989, by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Banka, be set aside and a retrial ordered. The prosecution story was that Ramsakal Singh, who was the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, was appointed a supervisor for the last census and neglected to perform his duty as such and to obey Orders issued to him in accordance with the rules made under the Census Act: I am quoting this from the letter that the Sub- divisional Magistrate wrote to the District Magistrate for obtaining his sanction under Section 10 of the Act for the prosecution of Ramsakal Singh. And the material on which the Sub-divisional Magistrate wrote to the District Magistrate was a report by an assessor-punch that Ramsakal Singh had been doing no work at all for the last two months as supervisor and that the assessor-punch had been getting the work done by somebody else, together with an agreement by the Sub- Inspector that the supervisor had not come as yet and that the assessor-punch had made arrangements for his work. The Sub-Inspector asked that the supervisor be prosecuted "for the gross negligence and leaving the census work without any excuse and intimation." In all this, not a word is said about any particular occasion, on which the supervisor had failed to discharge any particular duty imposed upon him. The Sub-divisional Magistrate summoned Ramsakal Singh on hearing from the District Census Officer that the Collector had sanctioned the prosecution, and did so under Section 10, Census Act. That summons came back unserved, and when a fresh summons was issued, the proper section, viz., Section 9(a), Census Act, was mentioned but without any details of any kind whatsoever.

(2.) One would have thought that in these circumstances the Sub-divisional Magistrate would at least endeavour to do his plain duty by putting some particulars of the offence to the accused under Section 242, Criminal P.C., but he does not seem to have done so at all, notwithstanding an entry in the order sheet which runs "Examined accused. Examined 5 P. Ws. Accused convicted &c. &c." For, the only examination of the accused that one finds in the record comes after the depositions of the three prosecution witnesses, and is referred to by the Magistrate himself as the examination of the accused under Section 342. Even this examination shows that no particulars of the offence were put to the accused at all; the Magistrate simply asked the accused what his statement was, and the accused stated that he had done everything, and on the days when he was unable to attend himself, had got the work done through others. The evidence of the three witnesses called for the prosecution also does not seem to have given sufficient particulars of any particular offence at any particular time. Indeed, the learned Magistrate does not seem to have realized at any time that any particulars were necessary. In his judgment he says that: The accused was often summoned to appear and take instructions from charge superintendent and show progress of his work. The late S.D.O. sent for the accused to appear at Katoria P.S. la December, but the accused did not appear before him when S.D.O. again proceeded to Betia near his village but the accused did not appear with his papers to show progress. He was noticed for the third time when he appeared at Amarpur when he was taken to task by the late S.D.O.

(3.) How the Sub-divisional Magistrate brings this within Section 9(a) is far from clear, though we find him saying towards the end that: As census officer (circle supervisor) lawfully required to give assistance in census work neglected to use reasonable diligence in performing the duties imposed on him and disobeyed orders of charge superintendent and late S.D.O.