SHEIKH GULZAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been admitted for consideration of the sentence only. To my mind it is a useful illustration of the class of case in which the High Court should not meddle with the discretion of the Magistrate. The circumstances are as follows: There was a man Dholan Dhunia who was entertaining some guests. They were sitting on a charpai outside his house. The party of five Sheiks came by and were annoyed because the Dhunias would not respectfully rise while they were passing. Upon the protest of the complainant the Sheiks set upon him and beat him, dragged him into the osara of the man Gulzar who is the first of the five Sheiks in the list and extracted some money from him by way of line for an affront to what they considered their dignity. It appears that Ekbal and Hussain, the second and third of the Sheiks took part in the beating and, as I have said, it was to Gulzar's osara to which the complainant was dragged and there beaten and money taken from him.

(2.) The Magistrate before whom the matter first, came sentenced each of the accused to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30. The District Magistrate before whom the matter came in appeal considered that Gulzar, Ekbal and Hussain were the principal offenders and did not disturb the sentences passed upon them. In the case of the other two accused he reduced the sentences to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 10 each.

(3.) No reason has been shown to me for interfering with this decision and this is not the class of case in which this Court should exercise revisional powers. If the authority of a Magistrate is to be constantly disturbed by interference with sentences passed in petty cases Magistrates will be afraid to exercise any discretion whatever. Indeed they will be driven to the course, which I have seen taken in some cases, of passing sentences heavier than would normally be the case in the anticipation that the High Court, yielding to an apparently irresistable temptation to meddle, will reduce the sentences. Such a situation is deplorable and should not be encouraged. Unless there is something that is manifestly wrong with the sentence, unless it is clearly out of proportion to the offence, if it is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and he has exercised his discretion as he clearly has in this case, no interference in revision should take place. This application is dismissed.