KHETRAMOHON DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are servants of the Raja of Kanika, and, between them and certain other persons who are also said to be in the employ of substantial landlords in the locality, there is a dispute over certain debuttar land. When the existence of this dispute was brought to the notice of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, action was taken by him under Section 144, Criminal P.C. In spite, however, of this, there was some kind of disturbance, in which the petitioners, were assaulted and which led to some of their rivals being prosecuted for rioting. Apparently the Sub-Inspector, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, thought that there might be a recrudescence of trouble, and, in order to prevent it, recommended that a number of men on both sides should be bound down under Section 107, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, on this report, issued notice, and, on receiving this notice, the petitioners appeared and asked that they should be tried separately and not along with the persons whose right to the land they disputed. This request was dis., allowed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, and it is against his order disallowing it that this application in revision is preferred. Quite clearly, the order made by the lower Court offends against a well-settled and indeed elementary principle of legal procedure. Ordinarily, a man is entitled to be tried separately, and it is only when he and other persons have combined to commit an offence or to produce a situation for which they may be held liable at law that he and the other persons so concerned can be tried together.

(3.) Quite obviously that is not at all the position here; in fact, diametrically the opposite is the case. Either the petitioner or their rivals are in possession of this land, and what the Court has to determine is which of them is the aggressor and may, therefore, reasonably be called on to furnish security to keep the peace. It is said that certain persons have now been convicted of rioting and have appealed against their convictions. Possibly the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate may no longer think it necessary to take preventive action, but, if he does, the petitioners must, quite clearly, be tried separately and not along with those persons who dispute their right to the land.