EMPEROR Vs. BIHARI BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Bihari Bhar, son of Chauthi Bhar, of an offence under Section 22, Clause (2), Sub-clause (a), Criminal Tribes Act, being Act No. 6 of 1924.

(2.) The opposite party, Bihari, was convicted by the learned Magistrate of the First Class on the 13 December 1927. He appealed from, jail, and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him on the sole ground that the offence could not be tried summarily, and in summarily trying him the learned Magistrate made an error of law. In the result the learned Judge acquitted Bihari, and having regard to the circumstance that Bihari had already been in jail for over a month he did not order a re-trial. The learned Government Advocate has argued that the offence with which Bihari was charged was an offence punishable with the maximum amount of six months rigorous imprisonment and that, therefore, under Section 260, Criminal P.C., the case was triable summarily. We find that the learned Magistrate did not specify clearly the offence with which Bihari was charged. He simply stated, against Col. 5 of the form in which summary convictions are recorded, "S. 22, Act 6 of 1924." Section 22, Criminal Tribes Act, is a large section and contains several portions. In the earlier portion, Sub-section (1) deals with offences which are punishable with one and two and three years rigorous imprisonment. The Sub-section (2) deals with other kinds of offences, some of which are punishable only with six months rigorous imprisonment. We have tried to find out what was the actual offence with which Bihari was charged, in order to find out what would be the appropriate clause of Section 22 under which he should be charged, if the case was made out against him.

(3.) The evidence shows that Bihari, who was a registered member of a criminal tribe, left his house on 22 November, 1927, and reported to Baldeo chaukidar that he was going to the village of Audiar, and was likely to stay there for the night. He also informed him that he was to stay at the house of Pancham Bhar at Audiar. We further find that Pancham denies that Bihari ever went to him or stayed with him for the night. The evidence of Deo Narain, the chaukidar of Audiar, is to the effect that Bihari accused did not report to him his arrival at the village of Audiar, if he did at all arrive there.