RAJENDRA NATH SOM Vs. DWIJA PADA SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2 March, 1944, at the instance of the petitioner, the complainant, this Bench issued a Rule upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why this case should not be transferred from the file of the Sub-divisional Officer at Burd wan or such other Order made as the Court might think fit. The matter arose in this way. On 20 September 1943, the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer at Burdwan alleging that the opposite parties, the accused and others had committed offences against him under Secs.147, 325 and 395, Indian Penal Code. The substance of the com plaint was that on 18th September 1943, the accused armed with spears, lathis and other weapons trespassed into the complainant's house and looted 50 or 60 maunds of paddy from his granary; that the complainant resisted the accused whereupon he was hit on the head and wounded, and that when he raised his hand to protect his head he was struck by one of them with a lathi with the result that his left hand was fractured. A charge sheet was submitted against the accused on 17 November 1943 and the accused were put upon their trial at Burdwan in. the Court of Mr. S. Chatterji, a Munsif-Magis trate, on 29 November 1943. From then until 1 February 1944, the evidence for the prosecution was heard and finished. The accused made statements under Section 342, Criminal P.C. of the formal kind stating that they were innocent and it only remained for the defence to give evidence if they thought fit, for the advocates to address the Court and for the Court to deliver judgment. On 11 February 1944, the Court Sub-Inspector, Burdwan, put in the following written appli cation: In the Court of Mr. S. Chatterji, Munsif-Magis-trate, First Class, Burdwan, Sir, In connexion with the case noted in the margin I beg to submit as per Government instructions it has been decided by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Superintendent of Police that clemency to be shown in this case and as such it has been decided to withdraw the case. Orders from Superintendent of Police have been received with instruction to withdraw the case from prosecution. I pray that I may kindly be permitted to withdraw myself from prosecution in the case and the case may be disposed of accordingly under Section 494, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The complainant opposed this application in a counter-affidavit stating that the accused had entered an inner apartment of the petitioner's house, beaten him, inflicted wounds, and broken his hand for which there was no justification. The Magistrate thereupon on the same day made the following order: Bead the petition filed by the complainant I have not been given the grounds what prompted the D.M. or the S.P. to withdraw from the prosecution of a case against accused who appear to be all well-off. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. Now cage shall proceed. However, if the C.S.I. can satisfy the grounds of such withdrawal I am prepared to reconsider.

(3.) Thereupon the Court Sub-Inspector communicated with the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, who in turn, communicated with the District Magistrate, who on 12 February 1944 (the next day) made the following Order withdrawing the case from the trying Magistrate, Mr. S. Chatterji: Seen the Order of the trying Magistrate dated 11-2-1944 and the endorsement of the S.P. dated, 12-2-1944 on the petition of the C.S.I. It is urgent that Government Order regarding clemency should be carried out. The case is therefore withdrawn to my file and transferred to S.D.O. Sadar for favour of disposal.