ABDUL MANNAN Vs. TAIYAB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of an order passed under Section 522(3), Criminal P.C. The material facts are as follows : The present petitioner Abdul Mannan and six other persons were prosecuted on charges under Secs.143 and 352, Indian Penal Code, and they were placed on their trial before a Magistrate of the first class at Sylhet. The learned Magistrate found all the accused persons guilty under Secs.143 and 352, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate sentenced Abdul Mannan under Section 143 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The learned Magistrate sentenced the remaining accused persons under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, each to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 30 days. No separate sentence was passed under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, upon any of the accused persons.

(2.) The accused persons appealed against their conviction and sentence; and, on 25 June 1946, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of all the accused persons under both the sections, but he held that the sentence passed upon the accused, Abdul Mannan was excessive and he, therefore, reduced the sentence upon Abdul Mannan to a sentence under Section 143, Indian Penal Code of a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. With this modification the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) Neither the Court of first instance, nor the Court of Session passed any order under Section 522(3), Criminal P.C., when disposing of the appeal or when convicting the accused. Subsequently, on 28 June 1946, the complainant in the case moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prayed for an order under Section 522(3), Criminal P.C. On that same day, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order forwarding the application to the trying Magistrate for passing necessary orders. In the meantime, apparently, the trying Magistrate had been transferred and the application was placed before the successor of that Magistrate, who, on 16 July 1946, passed an order which reads as follows: Convicted party to show cause on 1 August 1946 why the immovable property should not be restored to the dispossessed persons.