GIRJA SURI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of one Girija Suri who has been convicted by a first class Magistrate of Monghyr under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and sentenced to eighteen months rigorous imprisonment. The charge against the petitioner was that: You on or about 10 June 1944, at Asarganj, Police Station Tarapur, were found in possession of two revolvers, two cartridges and one empty revolver case without licence or lawful authority. On that day, i.e., 10 June, P.W. 1, an Inspector of Police, received information from a spy that the petitioner and others assembled in the house of one Sukh Nandan Chaudhuri at Asarganj and that they had arms and ammunitions in their possession. A raid was arranged by the police, and the party included the Additional Superintendent of Police, a Sergeant Major, a Sub-Inspector of Police and others. The police-truck left Monghyr at 5 P.M. and reached Asarganj at about 7-30 P.M. They surrounded the house which they wanted to riad and made two arrests. After the arrests they saw the present petitioner escaping out of the back door of Sukhnandan's house, and they rushed at him. The petitioner took out a loaded pistol (Ex. 1) but was overpowered by constable Laldeo who threw him down. This pistol was handed over to Raghunandan Singh, Sub-Inspector. When a search was made of his person another revolver (Ex. II) was found wrapped in a shirt (EX. III). An empty revolver-case was also found in the pocket of the shirt. Some cartridges, corks besides some reddish powder and a knife were also found. All the materials were entered in the search list (EX. 1). A Fard- Beyan (Ex, 2) was drawn up on the basis of which the preliminary investigation started. Ultimately a charge sheet was submitted on 8 July, 1944. The trial Court accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and was of the opinion that it was not possible in the face of the prosecution evidence to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the petitioner as already stated, and an appeal from the decision has been summarily dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) It may be mentioned that the police party had not obtained any warrant for the search, nor were there any witnesses to the search. This matter is of importance in view of the defence taken up by the petitioner that the whole of this story that he was in possession of the materials was false. It was also noticed by the trial Court that the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate fifteen days after his arrest and no explanation for this delay in producing the accused was offered by the Police.

(3.) The learned Magistrate suggests in his judgment that perhaps the Police were exercising their powers under the Defence of India Rules; but he has himself observed that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was detained by the Police in exercise of any of those powers. Apart from the irregularities already stated, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the procedure followed in this case makes the trial null and void.