KING Vs. PARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued by the Criminal Bench calling upon two accused persons, who were discharged by a Magistrate acting under Section 494, Criminal P.C., and the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum, to show cause why the Magistrate's order should not be set aside and the prosecution proceeded.

(2.) Notice of this rule was given to the Advocate-General in order that the Provincial Government should also have an opportunity of being heard.

(3.) The material facts were as follows: On 18 March 1947, a first information was laid by Karuna Nair, Assistant Store-Keeper of Jugselai, alleging that 88 bags of rice had disappeared from the Tisgo Grain Store, This rice was public property and was not due to be sold as it had not been classified by the Provincial Government authorities. After investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against six persons, of whom five, including Parmanand Marwari and his cousin Shamlal Marwari, were sent to the Sub-divisional Magistrate in custody. The sixth accused person Parbhu Marwari was alleged to be absconding. The offences mentioned in the charge sheet were offences under Secs.881, 411 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, and an offence under the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance.