LACHMAN Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Lachman who on failure to furnish security under Section 110, Criminal P. C, was originally ordered by a Sub- Divisional Magistrate to be detained in prison for period of three years under Section 123(1) of the Code. On a reference under Section 123(2) Criminal P.C. the order of the Magistrate was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge with this modification that he reduced the period to two years from three years.

(2.) Lachman was challaned in two dacoity cases by the police but was discharged in one case on the 6 of July 1926 and in the other on the 15 of July, 1926. On the latter date viz., the 15 of July 1926, on a complaint being made by the police against the applicant to the effect that he was by habit a robber and a thief, and that his being at large without giving security was hazardous to the community, an order was passed by the very Magistrate who had discharged him in the dacoity case on the same day under Section 112, Criminal P.C. As already stated that order was confirmed and the applicant was ordered to give security as detailed in the initial order or to be detained in jail.

(3.) The evidence against the applicant consisted of the statement of witnesses, who were examined in the dacoity case referred to above in Court, and of certain other witnesses who were examined by the police during the investigation of those cases and of four witnesses named Mangal, Mahabir, Bhuar and Chhedi, all residents of different villages, who were at different dates robbed when passing through certain jungles and who identified Lachman as being one of the dacoits. Farther there was the evidence of the mukhia and of the chaukidar of the village in which the applicant resides, and of certain other persons of the neighbouring villages who stated that the applicant was by habit a thief and a robber. There was also the evidence of a boy named Jagdhar who was engaged by one Ram Narain to supply water to wayfarers at a well situated in a jungle. This boy used to reside in a hut near the well in the day time, and he stated that the applicant accompanied by certain other persons used to come there to take food and to sleep in the hut, and that the applicant and his associates asked him not to let anybody know their whereabouts. Ram Narain corroborated the testimony of Jagdhar.