CHANDRESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. ARUNENDRA MOHAN GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patna in a pending proceeding instituted by Babu Arunendra Mohan Ghosh, complainant, alleging offences against four persons who on this complaint were summoned at first under Section 420, I.P.C. The complaint petition also mentioned another Section 406. The Magistrate heard evidence for the prosecution and there was some cross- examination of the witnesses before charge. The Magistrate by a considered order discharged two of the accused against whom he thought that no criminal offence had been made out, and as against the other two he framed charges under Secs.406 and Section 406 read with Section 114.

(2.) The Additional Sessions Judge makes the reference in this pending case on grounds which may be briefly summarised by saying that some of the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses did not appear to the Additional Sessions Judge to be reliable and that while the facts prima facie appeared to establish that there had been an entrustment of the jewels to the accused Raja Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh, and while there might have been conversion the conduct of the accused appeared consistent with their having been actuated by no criminal intent and might be capable of an innocent explanation. In so far as the reference is made on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge takes a different view from the Magistrate on the question of credibility of witnesses, that is ordinarily not a ground on which a High Court will be inclined to interfere in revision. I may refer to the observations of Rankin, C.J. in Phakir Chand Mondal V/s. Madar Mondal 1931 Cal 619: It is not the rule of the Court to interfere with decisions on facts upon evidence, except for special reasons and the referring Courts have again and again been asked to make their references subject to this consideration.

(3.) Those observations and others like them have been made in cases where a Sessions Judge refers to the High Court the proceedings of a case in which he is dissatisfied with the final result. The objections to making a reference or to interfering in revision are still stronger when the proceeding is a pending proceeding instituted in accordance with law and carried on regularly and in which no error of procedure is suggested to have been committed by the Magistrate before whom those proceedings are pending. The learned Additional Sessions Judge feels a doubt as to facts deposed to by the witnesses because of some discrepancies. But such criticism is premature. It has not been ascertained whether those facts are admitted or denied by the accused, still less whether any rebutting evidence is forthcoming. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is the only evidence before the Court and at present the facts alleged have not been even denied not to say disproved.