GURUCHARAN MAHTO Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months each. It appears that 28 persons were originally put on trial, of whom only 9 were convicted by the trial Magistrate of various offences. These 9 persona appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, and on appeal 7 of them were acquitted. Only the two petitioners were convicted under Section 352, Indian Penal Code. The charges against the petitioners were under Secs.147, 379 and 353, Indian Penal Code. The facts shortly stated are the following:

(2.) Mahabir Mahto and seven other persons were wanted in a case under Sections 143, 380 and 342, Indian Penal Code. It was stated that they were absconding and on 22-5-1945 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had directed the issue of processes under Secs.87 and 88, Criminal P.C., against these persons. On 31- 5-1945 Mahabir and two other persons surrendered in Court, and the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate ordered their release on bail. They were released on bail of Rs. 500 each. Then on 8-6-1945 an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police along with certain other chaukidars and dafadars went to the house of Mahabir Mahto and wanted to attach certain moveable properties. Mahabir's father, Sukan, as well as his brother, Gurucharan, one of the petitioners before me, objected to the attachment of the properties by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. They resisted the seizure of the goods and this led to an assault in which, it is said, the petitioners hit a constable called Baldeva Singh.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has come to the following findings: he has, firstly, found that the police party had no right to make the attachment on 8-6-1945 inasmuch as the person against whom the process under Section 88, Criminal P.C., had been issued had already surrendered in Court on 31-5-1945 and had been released on bail; he has further found that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who headed the police party, was not acting in good faith, because he knew the process of attachment had been superseded by the subsequent events which had occurred, namely, the surrender of Mahabir in Court and his release on bail; he has also found that the process of attachment was defective in other respects. On these findings the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Secs.147, 379 and 353, Indian Penal Code. He has, however, convicted the two petitioners of the offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, relying mainly on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor V/s. Shib Lal .