ALI HUSSAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the two appellants Ali Hussain, appellant 1, has been convicted under Section 420, I.P. C, and sentenced to detention till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 250. Appellant 2 Saiyed Din has been convicted under Secs.420 and 114, I.P.C., and sentenced to detention till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 60. The allegations on which the two appellants were charged were briefly these: The complainant Amarendra Nath Dhar is a clerk in the service of a firm styled as D.L. Mitter and Company. He is a respectable young man fond of betting at the races and takes the risk of betting outside the rings with the possible consequence of being charged with gambling. On one Saturday about the middle of August last he attended the races and did some betting outside the enclosure with unlicensed bookmakers. He lost some money and was coming home, and when he was near the Plassey Gate on the Maidan, the accused Ali Hussain met him and saying that he had seen him betting with unlicensed bookmakers threatened to take him to the thana. Ali Hussain had at the time a khaki shirt and a round brush cap on his head. Ali Hussain told him that he would not take the complainant to the thana if the complainant would spend Rs. 100. On the intervention of appellant 2, Saiyed Din who happened to arrive at the place at the time, the amount was subsequently reduced to Rs. 40.

(2.) The complainant then left the place and when accused 1 came to the house of the complainant the complainant had to pay him Rs. 40 as arranged before. A few days later the two accused came to the house of the complainant again and accused 1 told him that unless he would pay another Rs. 15 to accused 2, accused 2 would report the matter to the uparwalas and that both of them might get into trouble. The complainant thereupon asked them to come and meet him at the Esplanade near the tramway shed. On the following Saturday the complainant however went and reported the whole matter to a Sub-Inspector, Bhakti Bhusan Roy by name, and it was arranged that the complainant when he would meet the two accused at the Esplanade would take them to the Wellington Square and would make some payment to the accused persons when the police could remain somewhere near by hiding. As arranged the two accused came and met the complainant at the Esplanade on the appointed Saturday and according to that arrangement the three persons went to Wellington Square and when a five rupee note which has been previously marked was handed over to accused 1 the appellants were arrested by the police.

(3.) The case for the defence was that the complainant owed Rs. 26 to Ali Hussain, that Ali Hussain made several demands for payment of the money; that there was an altercation in consequence and that when the complainant after taking the accused to Goltolao (Wellington Square) was giving to Ali Husain a five rupee note the police arrested them. According to the defence of Ali Hussain, Saiyed Din who was to get Rs. 5 from Ali Hussain accompanied him to Goltalao. On behalf of the defence one witness was examined in the case. The learned Magistrate however disbelieved the defence story and believing the case for the prosecution convicted and sentenced the two accused persons in the way as stated before.