CHANDI CHARAN MITRA Vs. MANINDRA CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Rule issued by two of my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Walmsley and Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose, and obtained by the complainant calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the orders complained of should not be set aside.

(2.) The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for me to state for the purpose of my judgment, are these: The complainant made a complaint against certain persons with regard to the cutting and removal of certain paddy and the allegation was that the paddy was removed by certain Barkandazes with the connivance or at the instigation of Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury who was called accused No. 1. It was alleged by the complainant that one of the persons who actually cut and removed the paddy was one Mokimuddin. The Magistrate who took cognizance of this case asked for a report arid on receipt of the report issued a summons against Mokimuddin only. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate, to whom the case was made over for disposal, after hearing the evidence which the complainant produced dismissed the case against Mokimuddin on the ground, as I understand, that there was not sufficient evidence to identify Mokimuddin with regard to this alleged offence. Then the complainant desired to proceed against the accused No. 1, Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury, who was the zemindar of the complainant. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate then directed notice to be served upon Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury to show cause why process should not issue against him. Cause was shown by Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury. We were informed by the learned Vakil who showed cause in this Rule, that a petition was put in by Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury and that a learned Pleader appeared for him and showed cause why process should not issue. The result was that the Sub-Deputy Magistrate came to the following conclusion, to use his own words: I do not find any reason to issue any process against Manindra Babu. I assume that that amounted to an order dismissing the complainant's complaint, as against Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury.

(3.) Thereupon the complainant applied to the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate and that application was dismissed, although the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate in calling upon Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury to show cause why he should not be proceeded against, was improper and irregular. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion on the facts that there was no case against the first accused and consequently he dismissed the application.