AMBICA MISSIR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge in upholding a conviction of rioting, held before the Joint Magistrate of Rampurhat, has come to several conclusions which, were quite inconsistent with his final findings of fact that the accused persons were guilty of the offence charged and that there was no reason to interfere with the sentence, which sentence was apparently passed by the Joint Magistrate on an acceptance of the whole case for the prosecution. All we can say about this judgment is that it is entirely inconsistent. We are equally hampered by the findings of fact of the learned Judge where he finds on the evidence that the prisoners are guilty as we should be by the findings of fact, if they stood alone, that the evidence is not to be believed, and that on certain points the case has entirely broken down. We cannot decide for ourselves which set of findings is correct, unless we are to deal with the whole of the evidence weighed in the light of the first Court s judgment and decide the case as an appeal. THIS is not our practice. Nor, in a case of this kind, do we think it right for us to do so. The present Sessions Judge of Birbhoom is the best Court to deal with the matter. We hold, as a point of law, that the judgment of the officiating Sessions Judge is a bad judgment and must be vacated. Beyond that, we can come to no finding. That being so, the case must be remanded to the Sessions Judge of Birbhoom for re- hearing of the appeal.

(2.) THE petitioners will remain on the same bail.