MADAN SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Dhabaleswar Patha situate on a char of the river Mahanady, within the jurisdiction of the Athgarh State, there is a sweet-meat shop. License for holding this shop is granted every year by the debuttar department of the Athgarh State to the highest bidder. One Kinu Sahu had been the original holder of this sweet- meat shop. The petitioner No. 1 Madan Sahu outbidded Kinu in 1932.33, and obtained the license in supersession of Kinu's claim. In the next year 1933.34, also Madan outbidded Kinu and the amount of bid went up to Rupees 4,600. Madan Sahu was however turned out for failure to pay the instalments of the bidded amount and the license was granted to Kinu Sahu.

(2.) This was in June last. In November 1933, Kinu's sweetmeat shop was looted by Madan Sahu and five others. This was an offence of rioting within the territory of the Athgarh Feudatory State. At the instance of the Ruling Chief, the Secretary to the Agent to the Governor General, Eastern States and Political Agent, Sambalpur, issued on 21 December 1933, six extradition warrants against the six petitioners before this Court. The District Magistrate of Cuttack was directed to execute the warrants and produce the petitioners before the Ruling Chief by 15 January 1934. The Political Agent, while issuing the warrants for execution, reported that he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. The warrants were bailable.

(3.) They were duly executed and the bailors undertook to produce the petitioners before the Ruling Chief of Athgarh on the date fixed, 1. e., 15 January 1934. On 15 January 1934, the petitioners did not appear before the Ruling Chief but they moved on that day a petition before the District Magistrate praying that the case be reported to the Local Government under Section 8.A, Extradition Act, with a recommendation that the proceedings for extradition of the petitioners be stayed. The learned District Magistrate refused the petition as no good ground had been made out for granting the prayer and also because the petition was made much two late and contained allegations which had no substance. The petitioners have now come up to this Court against the order of the learned District Magistrate.