EMPEROR Vs. GOPAL BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule calling upon the Sessions Judge of Cuttack and one Gopal Barik to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge dated the 19 March 1906 setting aside an order for the prosecution of the said Gopal Barik under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Sub divisional Magistrate of Jaipur should not be set aside and why such other order should not be passed by this Court as to it might seem proper.

(2.) Gopal Barik is a boy of 12 years of age and he complained to the police that the original accused Panu Puri had snatched an ornament from his person. The police thereupon, submitted a report in B form, which means that the complaint was false.

(3.) On the 24 November last witnesses were examined and the conclusion arrived at is given in these Words: "The witnesses proved the charge. The accused denied it and adduced evidence of ill-feeling. There is a difference between the Madhupur Raj and the raiyats of Sukdebpur and that is a well-known fact. The accused is one of the leading members of the raiyats of Sukdebpur and the independent witnesses are more or less interested in the Madhupur Raj. The B form true, submitted. I think it would be desirable to hold judicial enquiry into this case or order A form." The judicial enquiry was held on the 18 December 1905. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the Court called three witnesses. "We have gone through the record of the evidence and we have no doubt that, subject to what we shall say presently, the witnesses for the prosecution gave prima facie evidence in support of the charge. But the Subdivisional Magistrate was of opinion that he could not believe the witnesses because of the existence of a dispute between the Madhupur Raj and his raiyats and because the accused was one of the leading raiyats. The result of the judicial enquiry was thus the same as that of the first investigation, the same bias acting on the mind of the presiding officer.