RAM PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons, Ram Prasad, Sheo Prasad, Bhairon Prasad and Naubat Singh, have come up before this Court with a petition in revision to revise an order calling upon them to furnish security to be of good behaviour for three years under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) There seems to have been some amount of confusion in procedure in the Court below. By an order dated the 15 of March, 1924 a learned Magistrate called-1 upon seven persons, the four applicants and Mian Khan Jwala Prasad and Nizarm Shah, to show cause why they should not be bound over on the ground that they were "habitual dacoits and belonged to the dangerous gang of Dhani and Ram Kishan, dacoits". After hearing the case the learned Magistrate modified his notice and bound over two of the seven persons, viz., Jwala Prasad and Nizam Shah to furnish security for one year only. He ordered that so far as the five persons were concerned who have been asked to furnish security for three years, the proceedings should be laid before the Sessions Judge. Apparently under some misapprehension an appeal was filed through a learned vakil to the Sessions Judge on behalf of all the seven persons. The learned Sessions Judge treated the proceedings before him as one in appeal. By his order dated the 20 of May, 1924 he cancelled the order as to bonds against Jwala, Prasad and Nizam Shah and purported to dismiss the appeal of the remaining five persons.

(3.) It is needless to say that it was for the learned Sessions Judge to have himself passed the order as to security as there was no appeal on behalf of the five persons mentioned which could be dismissed.