RABBI RAUT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that on the 8th April 1914, the petitioners presented a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur, complaining against nine persons who are servants of the Birauli Factory. In the concluding portion of their petition the petitioners prayed for proceedings against these nine persons under Sections 144 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the petition was that these nine persons had criminally intimidated the petitioners, assaulted them and attempted to wrongfully confine them. On the tiling of this petition the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following order: "To Mr. Wylde of Birauli Factory. Please report on the circumstances of this petition. Put up on the 25th April 1914." THIS order is open to great objection. It was Birauli people who were the accused. Mr. Wylde, the Manager of the Birauli Factory, and, therefore, an interested party ought not to have been asked to make a report in these judicial proceedings. On the 20th of April a report was received and thereupon the petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not be prosecuted under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. On the 25th of May four witnesses were examined for the petitioners and two witnesses for the other side; then on the 26th of May an order under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, was made directing that action should be taken against the petitioners under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. We are of opinion that the order dated the 20th of April 1914 and that dated the 20th of May 1914 should be set aside. We are further of opinion that sufficient inquiry has not been made into the complaint made by the petitioners. There should be further inquiry into the truth of the statements made by them in their petition. We may herein suggest that a local-inquiry is desirable in this case. It may be made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself or he may depute a subordinate Magistrate for this purpose. It appears that the petitioners complain that although some witnesses on their side were examined, they themselves have not been examined. They should be examined if they choose to give evidence. We accept the reference, set aside the orders above referred to and send back the case for further inquiry.