BINODE BEHARI NATH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case have been set out in the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to refer to the same again. I have gone through the entire record, and I am satisfied that there are no merits whatsoever in the petitioner's case.

(2.) A point has been taken that, inasmuch as the petitioner was not examined under the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such an omission has vitiated the entire proceedings. I am not prepared to extend the principle of the case of Mazahar Ali v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 196 to inquiries under the provisions of Section 110. As far as I can see from the record the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any way by the omission to examine him under the provisions of Section 342, and I agree that to send the case back in order that the Magistrate might formally question him under the provisions of Section 342 would be a farce. I, therefore, think that the present Rule should be discharged. Cuming, J.

(3.) The petitioner in this case, one Binode Behari Nath, has been ordered to furnish security for his good behaviour, under Section 110 read with Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by giving a bond himself for Rs. 300, with two sureties for Rs. 300 each, for two years by the Deputy Magistrate at Alipore. As he failed to furnish the necessary securities he has been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years by the Sessions Judge at Alipore acting under Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code.