HAKIM SYED MUHAMMAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Hakim Syed Muhammad for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of the Bijnore District, refusing to expunge certain remarks concerning the applicant contained in a judgment delivered by Chaudhuri Harpal Singh Saheb, First Glass Magistrate, Bijnore, dated May 14, 1934, in the criminal case of Emperor V/s. Hakim Syed Muhammad and others.

(2.) The case of King-Emperor V/s. Hakim Syed Muhammad and others arose out of an affray which took place in a mosque at Dhampur on March 1, 1934, at about 8- 30 P.M. The case for the prosecution was that the present applicant together with Khan Muhammad and six other persons formed an unlawful assembly with the object of belabouring two persons, namely, Khallan Khan and Rahimdad Khan and that in pursuance of this common object, they did belabour these two persons and also attacked them with knives causing each of them injuries of varying severity. The case, as presented by the prosecution was that the real instigator of the whole affair was the present applicant but, after hearing the whole of the evidence the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the case was only proved against Khan Muhammad and consequently acquitted the applicant and the six other persons charged with him. In his judgment the learned Magistrate states: A careful examination of the first information report Ex. D, the dying declaration Ex. E, and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded before me has convinced me that the case against the accused persons other than Khan Muhammad is extremely doubtful and appears to be the result of a natural tendency to exaggerate facts when parties concerned are torn up into factions as they are in this case.

(3.) From this observation it is clear that the learned Magistrate was wholly unable to bold upon the evidence that the present applicant had been a party to the attack or had instigated it in any way. It must be remembered that the case for the Grown as presented was that the applicant was the ring-leader and the person really responsible, but upon the evidence the learned Magistrate was constrained to hold that no case whatsoever, had been established against him. In the circumstances indicated above, the learned Magistrate saw lit in the concluding portion of his judgment to make some very sweeping statements with regard to the applicant. He said: He meaning the applicant) appears to be a hot partisan of a group of desperados in Dhampur and he seems to be hopelessly mixed up in the local politics of a militant type. It is, therefore, a matter for serious consideration whether the influence which he exercises as an Honorary Magistrate and the awe which he is able to inspire as a gun license- holder should be allowed to continue in the peculiar conditions of the locality as disclosed in this case.