AJODHIYA PRASAD Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of Ajodhiya Prasad and two others against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Unao.

(2.) It would appear that one Sita Ram made an application on 26 August 1947, to the Court concerned against 18 persons for action under Section 107, Criminal P.C. Among the eighteen were included Ajodhiya Prasad, Mahabir and Mahabal Singh applicants. On 6 September 1947, the Magistrate concerned ordered that persons Nos. 1 to 10 only should be summoned and process-fee should be deposited accordingly. Sita Ram somehow, while depositing the fees for 10 persons, asked that summonses be issued to ten persons including the present applicants Mahabir, Mahabal Singh and Ajodhiya Prasad. When these applicants appeared before the Court they protested and pointed out to the Court below that their names had deliberately been omitted by the Court and it was directed that the summonses should not be issued to them. On 27 November, the Magistrate himself accepted these contentions of the applicants and directed that the summonses should issue against those of the persons, four in number, in the list who had not yet been summoned in spite of his orders. It seems that the Magistrate was thereafter transferred and, when his successor came, an application was given by Sita Ram on 17 December stating that he apprehended a breach of the peace from ten persons, including the three applicants, and the learned Magistrate directed proceedings to continue against the applicants. The applicants being dissatisfied went up to the learned Sessions Judge, who refused to interfere, holding that in case no case was made out for apprehension of breach of the peace from the applicants the Court concerned would make suitable orders.

(3.) It has been urged in this Court that the second Magistrate had no authority whatever to set aside in fact the order of discharge passed by his predecessor-the more so as no new or fresh material had been brought on the record to show that there was in fact any apprehension of breach of the peace from the applicants. I have heard the learned Counsel and am satisfied that the application must be allowed.