CHARU CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in appeal No. 408 were four persons named Charu Chandra Ghose, Akhoy Kumar Rooj, Akhoy Kumar Pal and Jiban Chandra Roy alias Jiban Krishna Ray; the latter died after the appeal had been filed and at the present moment the appellants are the three first named persons. In appeal No. 409, the appellants are three in number, namely, Ganpat Pandey, Rajani Kant Samui and Charitar Muchi alias Ram Charitar Muchi. The above named seven persons, along with six others, were tried under Section 120-B, read with Section 420, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan and a jury. The jury convicted the said seven persons and the learned Judge agreeing with the verdict of the jury, sentenced the said seven persons to various terms of imprisonment as under, viz., the accused Charu Chandra Ghose to three years rigorous imprisonment; the accused Akhoy Kumar Rooj and Jiban Chandra Roy to two years rigorous imprisonment; the accused Akhoy Kumar Pal to one year's rigorous imprisonment; and ea oh of the accused, Ganpat Pandey, Rajani Kant Samui and Charitar Muchi, to-one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts connected with these two-appeals, shortly stated, are as follows : On the 17th July, 1919, one Jiten Das (P.W. 67) made an application before the District Magistrate of Burdwan, asking the latter to take action against a number of persons who were in the habit of instituting false cases in the Civil Courts against innocent persons. Ten persons were named in Jiten Das's petition, which has been tendered as an exhibit in this-case and which is Exhibit 190. The District Magistrate forwarded the petition to-the Superintendent of Police in Burdwan for necessary action. The latter on receipt of the petition passed an order on the 16 August, 1919, for arresting the ten persons mentioned in Jiten Das's petition and for starting a case against them under Section 110, Cr.P.C. A Police enquiry followed, but although the case under Section 110, Cr.P.C. was started on the 18 of August, 1919,. the Police did not submit a final report-even up to March, 1920. On the 3 March, 1920, the Magistrate, before whom the proceedings under Section 110, Cr.P.C. were pending, being of opinion that inasmuch as the Police report had not been, submitted for a period of nearly eight-months, directed the discharge of the said ten persons. On the 17 of March, 1920, a first information was lodged against the said persons, charging them with having, committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the 21 June, 1920, the. District Magistrate of Burdwan applied before the Munsif, first Court, at Burdwan,, for sanction to prosecute five persons named, Prabhu Ram Pandey, Charu Chandra Ghose, Akhay Kumar Pal, Amrita Lal Samui and Upendra Nath Naik for offences under Secs.193, 209, 467/114 and 471 and also under some of these sections read with Section 109 and also-under some of these sections read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In his petition, the District Magistrate statedi that Prabhu Ram Pandey was a veteran-litigant and a proclaimed " tout" in the District of Burdwan, and the said other four persons were his creatures and associates, and that all of them with other person or persons unknown, were members-of a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of, amongst others, fraudulently obtaining moneys or properties from innocent persons or depriving them of their lawful rights by instituting false and fraudulent suits against such persons on the basis of forged documents and by committing other offences punishable in law or by doing illegal acts with illegal means in connection with those false claims. Particulars were given by the District Magistrate in his said petition of the false and fraudulent suits alleged to have been brought by the persons, against whom sanction was applied for: On the 25 September, 1920, the Munsif granted the necessary sanction. There was an application for revision of the order made by the Munsif before the District Judge of Burdwan and the latter, by his order, dated the 31 of April, 1921, revoked the sanction granted by the Munsif. While these proceedings were pending, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against certain persons on the 8 of May, 1920. It was alleged that the present accused, along with others, had conspired to cheat people by bringing fraudulent civil suits in Burdwan and in Shahabad and that they were professional swindlers and habitual conspirators.

(3.) In order to understand the case against the accused persons, it is necessary to mention some of the details of the conspiracies in which they were, according to the Police, engaged. It appears that Prabhu Ram Pandey, whose name has already been mentioned, claimed to be the reversionary heir of one Sheo Balak, who died sometime in 1903, leaving a widow called Jhalo Koer. After Sheo Balak's death, it is alleged that Prabhu Ram determined to get hold of Sheo Balak's properties and with that view instituted various suits. One Amar Dayal claimed to be the adopted son of Shoo Balak, having been adopted by Jhalo Koer, and it is said that he used to look after Jhalo Koer's properties. Prabhu Ram Pandey instituted certain suits against Amar Dayal in 1910 and 1911. It was alleged that these suits were false and fraudulent. It appears further that Jhalo Koer became involved in debt and mortgaged her lands on the 14th of Agrahayan 1318 F.S. corresponding with the 30 of November, 1910, and executed and registered a deed in favour of Progar Ram, Raghubir Shaha and Badhu for a consideration of Rs. 500. Ram Dhyan Panday was a witness who identified Jhajo at the time of the registration of this deed. A few days after this, viz., on the 8 of December, 1910, the accused Jiban Krishna brought a criminal case at Burdwan against Ram Dhyan. Summons was never served on Ram Dhyan in this case and it is alleged that Ram Dhyan became aware of this for the first time when he was arrested in execution of a warrant at Sasgiram. He came to Burdwan and met Prabhu Ram Pandey and invoked his assistance. Prabhu Ram demanded Rs. 10. Ram Dhyan paid Re. 1 and promised to pay the balance on return home, which he did. Later on, it is said that Prabhu Ram took Ram Dhyan to a, temple and made him promise that he would not go against Prabhu Ram and said that in that case he would not be put to any trouble. Prabhu Ram, it is further alleged, said that it was at his instance that the case had been instituted. On the 27 of January, 1911, the accused Charu Chandra Ghose, instituted a Small Cause Court Suit No. 45 of 1911, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan against Ram Dhyan on an alleged note of hand, dated the 28 October, 1908. The suit was decreed and compromised for Rs. 214 on the 20 of February, 1911. It is alleged that Ram Dhyan never came and compromised the suit, nor had he borrowed any money from Charu Chandra Ghose and that Ram Dhyan came to know of this matter for the first time when his lands were sold some three years later in execution of the decree. Raghubir's name has already been mentioned. He was one of the mortgagees of Jhalo Koer and it is alleged that between 1912 to 1917 certain proceedings were taken by some of the accused against Raghubir. In other words, suits were instituted against Jhalo, Amar Dayal, Ram Dhyan and Raghubir. The above suits may be classed under one group, being false suits brought by the conspirators in respect of matters in connection with Jhalo Koer's properties.