SRILAL CHAMARIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants before us, Srilal Chamaria and Mimraj Benia, have been convicted by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on charges framed under Sections 161 and 109 of the Penal Code. The appellant Srilal has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Mimraj has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeals are preferred from these convictions and sentences.

(2.) At the trial charges were also framed against the appellants on the footing that they respectively attempted and abetted an attempt to commit an offence punishable under Section 161 read with Section 109 and were, therefore, punishable under Section 511 of the Code or in the case of Mimarj under that section read with Section 109. These charges, however, were not pressed by the prosecution and so far as they are concerned, the learned Magistrate must be taken to have recorded a verdict of not guilty.

(3.) I am not going to enter upon an elaborate review of the facts in detail. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Magistrarte, Mr. K. B. Das Gupta, and, without adopting every word of his reasoning, I agree on essential points with the conclusions at which he has arrived in regard to the appellant Srilal.