RAMDENI PATHAK Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the rule issued in these two cases by my brother James must be made absolute. Before dealing with the merits of the case, I wish to produce a passage from the able judgment of the learned trying Magistrate which sets out the circumstances under which the prosecution of the two petitioners originated. The passage runs as follows: In the trial before Mr. A. Singh, Deputy Magistrate, Dhanukdhari Missir and others were charged for theft and for being members of an unlawful assembly.... Mr. A Singh acquitted the accused in that case his finding being that the case instituted by Mohammad Isa was maliciously false and all the witnesses had lied. A petition was subsequently filed by Dhanukdhari Missir before Mr. A. Singh for the prosecution of the witnesses for giving false evidence. He rejected this petition and refused to take action. The Superintendent of Police, Champaran, and the District Magistrate then carried on a correspondence regarding the matter (this does not form part of the record but it is necessary to refer to this in order to explain the sequence of events) and ultimately the District Magistrate directed the trying Magistrate to institute proceedings against Mohammad Isa and the persons whom he found had given false evidence before him at the original trial. Mr. A. Singh went Into the matter, again and he drew up the charges which form the subject matter of this case against Ramdeni and made a complaint in writing to the S.D.O. Sadar, etc. etc.

(2.) It appears that on 18 July 1936, Mohammad Isa had lodged an information at the police station, Madhubani, charging Dhanukdbari Missir and certain other persons with having formed an unlawful assembly and removed the materials of his hut and certain other articles from a piece of land belonging to him with a view to dispossess him from it The case was investigated by the Sub-Inspector in charge of the police station under the supervision of the Divisional Inspector and the allegations of Mohammad Isa being found to be true a charge sheet was submitted against Dhanukdhari Missir and others. These persons were however acquitted by the trying Magistrate on 17 September 1936. The learned Magistrate was then moved by Dhanukdhari Missir to prosecute Mohammad Isa and his witnesses including petitioners under Secs.211 and 193, Indian Penal Code, respectively but he declined to do so by his order dated 12 October 1933. Subsequently the District Magistrate intervened in the matter as stated in the passage quoted above, and the trying Magistrate accordingly preferred a complaint against Mohammad Isa as well as the petitioners. Mohammad Isa has since been acquitted of the charge under Section 211, but the petitioners have been convicted of the offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each.

(3.) It may be stated that the petitioner Sheosaran Chaudhuri was charged in respect of three statements and the petitioner Ramdeni Pathak in respect of two. The only statement however in respect of which these petitioners have been convicted relate to certain weapons said to have been carried by the persons accused in Isa's case. The finding of the Courts below briefly is that whereas the petitioners had not stated before the police that the persons named by them as accused in Isa's case carried any weapons such as bhalas, ganrasas, etc., they falsely stated before the trying Magistrate that they had made such a statement before the police.