EMPEROR Vs. VIJAIDATTA JHA NARAINDUTTA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by the District Magistrate, Mandla, with the recommendation that the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., should be set aside and further enquiry be ordered.

(2.) THE non applicant Vijaidatta is the malguzar of a number of villages including Bhawartal. This village has a large area of forest which is used for purposes of nistar by the residents of the surrounding villages. It was alleged that in the year 1941, the non-applicant got into heavy debts to satisfy which he had to part with two of his villages and ever since he had been end eavouring to augment his income by taking recourse to harassing and bullying the villagers who used the Bhawartal forest for' nistar, that he was in the habit of extorting money from ignorant villagers by bringing unlawful pressure on them by forcibly impounding their cattle or by wrongfully detaining the villagers and their carts and subjecting them to mal-treatment such as tying them by their necks and trampling them under his horse and threatening their lives with a gun. He struck terror in the hearts of the villagers by declaring that he was exempt from punishment for the offence of murder. He also threatened to implicate innocent villagers in false cases and refused to pass receipts for the amounts which he received from the villagers.

(3.) THE learned District Magistrate regards the case as one of administrative nature designed to secure protection of tenants from oppression by malguzars and points out that the effect of this decision is likely to affect adversely the already low morale of poor tenants, and to strengthen the hands of the bullies amongst the the malguzars. It is stressed that the Sub-Divisional. Magistrate overlooked some important decisions of the civil Court filed by the prosecution and that he gave undue prominence to some part of the evidence and ignored the significance of another part, and that he was wrong in allowing himself to be misled by the defence evidence and that the case as between the harassed tenants and tyrannical malguzars was not viewed in proper perspective. Lastly it is emphasized that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate failed to appreciate the attempt of the police to secure protection for the oppresses tenantry as honest and bona fide. Before proceeding to deal with the facts of the case, it may be observed that the object of Section 110 is preventive and not punitive as the very terms of the section show, that it is intended to control the activities of persons who are by habit robbers, house-breakers, thieves, or forgers, receivers of stolen property or those who habitually protect or harbour thieves or aid in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or those who habitually commit or attempt to commit, or abet the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or who are in the habit of committing or getting involved in the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, or generally those who are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community.