BHANGA SINGH Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas to show cause why orders passed under Section 109, Criminal P.C. on the petitioners should not be set aside.

(2.) The material facts briefly are as follows. On 13 March 1916, witness Jugal Kishore Dutta, a clerk employed in Calcutta, returned home by the 8/5 train, and descended from the train at Mathurapur Road Station. Going home north from the station, he saw two taxis and a private car turning and entering a tile factory of Messers K.C. Pal. Suspicion was aroused. He went to the adjacent para, and the para people went back with him to the tile factory and questioned the occupants of the cars. The occupants were Sikhs. They stated that they had been hired by Chhotu Maharaj, according to Jugal Kishore, to take his bride. The village people were not satisfied. They sent information to the police, and the police officer arrived there. At about 12/30, Chhotu Maharaj came to the place, and the police questioned him. The Sikh taxi drivera stated that they were hired by Chhotu Maharaj to take his family. Chhotu Maharaj said that he hired them to transport, rice which he had purchased.

(3.) Considering the explanation unsatisfactory, proceedings under Section 109, Criminal P.C. were started against Chhotu Lal Sharma and the seven occupants of the three cars and another person who was found standing at the gate of the tile factory. Chhotu Lal Sharma was too ill to attend Court during the actual hearing and he was not in the dock at any time when the witnesses were being examined. Four prosecution, witnesses were examined. No defence witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate held that the three petitioners, i.e., the drivera of the three cars. wore unable to give a satisfactory account of themselves, and he directed that each do execute, a bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties of Rs. 250 each to be of good behaviour for one year, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Magistrate directed that other persons who were tried jointly with the petitioners should be discharged. The petitioners appealed. Their appeal was heard and dismissed, by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas. Hence this Rule.