PARBATI CHARAN BAISYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on an application arising out of a proceeding binding down the petitioners under Section 110, Criminal P. C., and it was allowed to be argued on the footing that it related to two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mymensingh; one on 26 August 1933, and the other on 15 September 1933, the former calling upon the petitioners to furnish security on the ground that they are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community, and the latter rejecting the bonds given by the sureties offered, and directing the petitioners Parbati Charan Baisya, Dhirendra Nath Dutta and Birendra Chandra Choudhury (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) to surrender. The Rule granted by this Court on 13 November 1933, was, it may be mentioned, in general terms to show cause why the order binding the petitioners down under Section 110 read with Section 118, Criminal P. C, should not be set aside, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) It appears that a proceeding under Section 110(f), Criminal P. C, was initiated against the petitioners, on the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, East Mymensingh, dated 2 May, 1933, on the ground that, they belonged to a terrorist organisation, the object of which was to terrorise people, and to collect money ,by illegal means, and to collect arms and ammunition for the purpose of murdering, persons in authority and those helpful to Government. In point of time, the initiation of the proceeding under Section 110(f), Criminal P. C, followed closely upon the discharge of the petitioners from the category of accused persons in a dacoity case, which was tried by a special Tribunal appointed by the Government. The case against the petitioners so far as the dacoity was concerned, appears to have been withdrawn under Section 494 of the Code on 20 March 1933, before the Special Tribunal constituted for the trial of the dacoity case known as the kunihati dacoity case, functioned. The trial of the petitioners, so far as the proceeding started against them under Section 110 of the Code was concerned, was held before the learned Additional Magistrate, Mymensingh; and the Magistrate in a judgment, exhaustively dealing with the materials placed on the record, gave his decision on 5 June 1933 directing each of the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties of a like amount, to be of good behaviour for two years. The case then came up to the Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, under Section 123(2), Criminal P. C., on the petitioners having refused to furnish security. The learned Judge in his judgment dealt with the questions raised before him on behalf of the petitioners, bearing upon matters of procedure and on the merits of the case, and gave his decision on 22 June, 1933, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, and recorded an order on 15 September 1933, dealing with the question of fitness of sureties offered by the petitioners, and embodying the reasons for his conclusion that none of the sureties offered by the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 named above, should be accepted.

(3.) It may be mentioned at the outset that the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in the case before us, were made by him when the records were before him in view of the provisions contained in Section 123(2), Criminal P. C. The position may also be indicated that the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in this case, which have been challenged in the application on which this Rule was granted, are subject to revision by this Court, on grounds on which revisional powers are exercised in the case of non-appealable sentences or orders.