RAJENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 provides that, whenever a Sub- Divisional Magistrate receives information that a person within the local limits of his jurisdiction is in the habit of committing such offences as theft, robbery, extortion, breach of the peace and so forth, or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, he may require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for his good behaviour; and Section 117, Sub-section (3), enacts that the fact that a person is such a habitual offender as aforesaid may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.

(2.) Under these provisions, the petitioner, who is an Honorary Magistrate of twenty years standing and a zemindar of good family and position residing in the Supaul Sub-Division of the Bhagalpur District, was, on the 18th May last, called upon to show cause by Babu Satis Chandra Mukerjee, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Supaul, acting upon information embodied in a Police report. On the 24th ultimo, he moved this Court to "quash" these preliminary proceedings and order further proceedings to be "dropped"; and he obtained a Rule, which sets forth two grounds for our interference, namely, first, that "it does not appear that the facts alleged against him fall within the scope" of Section 110, and secondly, that "there appear to have been threats of such proceedings in former years," which proceedings were "without any basis whatever" and were "dropped," and "nothing new specifically coming under Section 110 appears in the Police report." This Rule we are now asked to make absolute.

(3.) The facts as to which there is, and can be no dispute, are these. The present Sub- Divisional Magistrate, on his appointment as such in April 1911, found that his predecessor (Mr. Bainbridge) had left under consideration the question whether preventive action should be taken against the petitioner and, at his instance, Deputy Superintendent Raghunandan Singh, who had no previous knowledge of the matter, was specially deputed from elsewhere to inquire into it. Under the supervision of this Police Officer, an inquiry was made in the earlier part of the present year, and a Police report in the prescribed form was submitted on the 18th May. In that report, it is stated that "Two hundred and fourteen witnesses have been found to prove that the oppression of this man (that is, the petitioner) is beyond description, and that he, by his continuous bad character, has made himself liable for prosecution under all the clauses of Section 110. Seventy-one specific instances of overt acts, corroborated by witnesses, have been proved, and there are 119 instances in which the sufferers only will depose to the hardships and thefts, practised on them. These instances are of such a nature that corroboration by other witnesses is practically impossible. Thirty-five witnesses prove the accused s association with proved bad characters, and 165 witnesses will prove his general repute." The report further alleges that three charges of wrongful confinement and assault-- one in 1909 and two in June 1911--were brought against the petitioner and others, each ending in a compromise;" and that there are--besides these reported cases, which appear to have been of a comparatively trifling character--"many" more offences charged against him personally, the latest said to have been committed on the 9th March last, which were not reported at the time, but "will be proved by the persons who suffered at his hands."