JANGLI MIAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners have been found guilty under Section 7, Bihar Village Collective Responsibility Act, 1943. They were originally sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each, or in default simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each. This sentence was reduced in appeal to a fine of Rs. 2 each, or in default simple imprisonment for a period of four days each. The application raises an important question of interpretation of the provisions of Section 5, Bihar Village Collective Responsibility Act, 1948, and the small fine imposed by the Court of appeal below is no indication of the importance of the question raised. The main contention which has been raised on behalf of the four petitioners is that they have not violated any direction given under Section 5(b) of the Act, and, therefore, they are not liable to punishment under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point raised on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to state the facts very briefly. It appears that in December 1948 the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum had passed an order under Section 8, Bihar Village Collective Responsibility Act, 1948. By this order he had directed that the inhabitants of village Geoelkera Bazar shall be responsible for guarding and protecting from destruction, damage, interruption or obstruction the railway line and telegraphs and communications within the village and from mile post 214 to 215 of the B.N. railway main line. Section 8 of the Act empowers the District Magistrate by order to impose collective responsibility on the inhabitants of any particular area. This section merely imposes a collective responsibility on all the inhabitants of that area. By another order passed on the same date, under Section 4 of the Act, the Depty Commissioner of Singhbhum had appointed one Madhu Prasad as the headman for the aforesaid village. Then, on the same date, there is a third order by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the interpretation of which the parties have been at variance. This third order of the Deputy Commissioner purports to be an order under Section 5 of the Act. It reads as follows: Under Section 5, Bihar Village Collective Responsibility Act, 1943, Madhu Prasad is required to provide 36 patrollers from the inhabitants of the above village for patrolling at night. One patrol is to consist of four men and one patrol is to be on duty at one time; the night patrolling is to be shared by three such patrols of four men each for 3 1/2 to 4 hours at a time.

(3.) The prosecution case is that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner the village headman Madhu Prasad had fixed a roster of duties to be performed by some of the members of the village patrol. Admittedly, the petitioners were members of the village patrol. They did not, however, perform the duties, as shown in the roster prepared by the village headman, on 25 June 1944, between the hours 11 P.M. and 2 A.M. It is admitted that the petitioners did perform the protective duties imposed on them according to a chart prepared by themselves, but not according to the roster of duties prepared by the village headman.