EMPEROR Vs. RAM CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the case of three persons, Ram Chandra Roy, Kala Chand Roy and Maniruddin Mondal, which has been referred to us under Section 307 by the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad. These three persons were tried on three charges : one under Section 395, I.P.C., one under Section 147, I.P.C., and one under Section 342, I.P.C. The jury unanimously found them not guilty under all the three sections. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury so far as Section 395, I.P.C., was concerned. He, however, disagreed with the jury so far as their verdict under Secs.147 and 342, I.P.C., was concerned. He was of opinion that all the three accused persons were guilty under Section 147, I.P.C., of rioting and that one of them, Ram Chandra Roy, was guilty under Section 342, I.P.C., of unlawful confinement. The facts of the case are briefly these : One Shashi Bhusan Chowdhury who was the proprietor of the Nadhai estate died some time in 1918 leaving as his heirs two minor sons, Ahi Bhusan and Bibhuti Bhusan, under the guardianship of their mother Shailabala Chowdhurani and a grandson Phani Bhusan, the son of a predeceased son of his. This boy who was also a minor was under the guardianship of his mother Harimati Chowdhurani. The usual disputes appear to have arisen between these two ladies or more correctly between persons looking after their interests and on 28 April 1925 Sreemati Harimati Chowdhurani, the mother of Phani Bhusan, applied to the District Judge on behalf of her minor son for the appointment of a common manager under Section 93, Ben. Ten. Act.

(2.) At the time of making this application she asked that an ad interim receiver might be appointed for certain reasons which are not necessary to state here. This prayer for the appointment of an ad interim receiver was granted ex parte on the day that the application was filed and one Babu Jnanendra Chandra Chowdhury, a pleader of the District Judge's Court, was duly appointed as the ad interim receiver. This gentleman furnished the necessary security and received his letter of appointment on 9 May 1925 and on the following day left Rajshahi and reached Nadhai on 11 May 1925. He then proceeded to take over charge of the estate. On 15 May 1925, at about midnight when the receiver was sleeping in the toshakhana room which he apparently used as his bad-room, a number of persons, some seven or eight in number including the three accused persons, came to the house and called upon the zemindari officials to turn the receiver out. The receiver informed them that he was there under the orders of the District Judge. This only apparently served to further exasperate the accused persons. They came into the house, entered the receiver's room and pulled him out and took him to the Dewankhana where they surrounded him. He was there made to produce the keys which he had received from one of the zemindari officials and also any papers what he might have with him. He was then taken by these persons back to the toshakhana and the door of the room was bolted from outside so that he was unable to leave the room The next morning he was escorted to the railway station by the accused persons and a number of others. He came back to Rajshahi and reported the matter to the District Judge. Under the learned Judge's order he went to Nawabganj and there laid a formal complaint before the police. An enquiry was instituted. After considerable delay, due to the fact that this Court was moved and the case was transferred to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad, the case was heard with the result that I have already noted.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons was a simple plea of not guilty. They neither denied nor did they admit their presence at the time of the occurrence; neither as far as I can see, do they admit or deny that any occurrence took place. Ram Chandra filed a written statement in the Magistrate's Court in which he seemed to have alleged that the receiver had no right or authority to go and take possession and suggested that the receiver's father owed the estate some money What was really urged on behalf of the defence or what exactly was their casein the Sessions Judge's Court or what was the case made for them in the Sessions Court it is somewhat difficult to say, though it might appear from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that Ram Chandra and Kala Chand would admit their presence at Nadhai at the time when the receiver was there It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that they were actually taking tea with the receiver. In this Court, as far as I can understand, the case would seem to be that the story of the receiver is false and that in anyway the facts alleged, even if found to be correct, are not sufficient to support a case of rioting or unlawful confinement so far as the present three accused persons are concerned.