KEDAR NATH SAHAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was at one time a Tahsildar entrusted with the collection of subscriptions for a charitable orphanage at Monghyr. In December 1931 or January 1932, the secretary of the institution, being dissatisfied with his work dismissed him from the post of Tahsildar. The secretary's action was confirmed by the committee of the institution in February 1932. The petitioner was also a member of the committee until the election held on 17 March 1932, when he failed to secure reelection. The committee elected on that date took, office as from 24 April 1932. In the meanwhile, on 19 April 1932, the accused had presented himself to the Inspector of Police at Kasba in the District of Purnea and represented himself to be a collector of subscriptions on behalf of the orphanage and persuaded the Inspector of Police to introduce him to persons likely to subscribe.

(2.) Accordingly the Inspector introduced him to Anadinath Mukherji who subscribed Rs. 5 to the orphanage, Babu Mohan Lal Sahu, a pleader, who contributed Rs. 2 and Babu Badrilal Sahu who subscribed Rs. 5. The first two subscriptions were realized on 19 April and the third on 9 May. On 11 May the petitioner was arrested at Katihar in connexion with another matter. On the above facts the petitioner was charged with cheating AnadiNath Mukherji, Mohan Lal Sahu and Badri Lal. He was tried by a First Class Magistrate of Purnea who convicted him under Section 420, I.P.C., and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each of the three counts, the sentences to run consecutively.

(3.) The petitioner appealed to the Sessions Judge of Purnea: but, as the Sessions Judge himself had at one time been connected with the orphanage, the appeal was at his request transferred by this Court to the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur. That learned Judge remitted the case to the trial Court for further evidence to be recorded with respect to certain matters. When this evidence had been recorded and the record returned to the Sessions Court, the appeal was made over by the Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur for hearing. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences. The first point argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.