DALU GOUR Vs. MOHESWAR MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Manbhum Singhbhum under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal P.C. for quashing, the case against eight persons who have been summoned to stand their trial for an alleged offence under Section 379/109, Indian Penal Code. The main ground which has been given by the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference can be best expressed in his own words: In my opinion, there does not appear to be any material before the Court for prosecuting these petitioners and that being the position, the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process and summoning the petitioners should be set aside and the proceedings so far as these petitioners are concerned should be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge has also referred to another ground relating to the question of jurisdiction though he has not made that the main ground for his recommendation. Therefore, two points arise for consideration, (1) Whether the Magistrate who issued process against the petitioners was legally competent to do so; and (2) whether there were any materials before the Magistrate on which the petitioners before the learned Sessions judge, could be tried for the offence in question.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to set out some of the relevant facts. On 17-11-1915, one Moheswar Mahato filed a petition against 10 persons including the 8 persons whose case has been referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, for action under Section 144, Criminal P.C. as respects an apprehended breach of the peace over the harvesting of the paddy crop on two plots of land (plots 48 and 49).

(3.) This petition was sent by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate of Jamshedpur to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakchi Police Station, for an enquiry and report. The learned Magistrate also directed the police officer to see that no breach of the peace took place over the harvesting of the paddy crop. On 26-11-1945, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sakchi Police station, reported that one Jagu Dutta (one of the persons summoned by the learned Magistrate whose case has not been referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge) had got the paddy cut with the help of 40-50 labourers from the plots in question on the night of the very day on which the petition was filed by Moheswar Mahato, namely, 17-11-1945. The Sub- Inspector of Police made a prayer in his report that Jagu Dutta and other accused persons mentioned in the petition of 17-11-1945, should be summoned to stand their trial for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. This report of the Sub- Inspector of Police was put up to the learned Magistrate on 27-11-1945, and on that date the learned Magistrate passed an order to the following effect: Read police report on the petition filed by Moheswar Mahato. Ask S.I. to institute a case under Sub-section 379 and 379/109, I.P.C. to investigate and to report. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate also called upon Jagu Dutta to show cause why he should not be asked to execute a bond for keeping the peace. We are not concerned in this case with the latter part of the order of the learned Magistrate. On receipt of the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the Sub-Inspector of Police drew up a formal first information report on the Orginal petition of 17-11-1945, and his own report dated 26-11-1945.