KING Vs. MOULE BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an examination of the record of the case, Emperor V/s. Mould Btix and Ors. pending before Mr. R.K. Lal, a Magistrate exercising first class powers at Jamshedpur (G.R. Case No. 324A of 1947), a Bench of this Court issued a rule against the accused persons as also the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum, directing them to show cause why the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 13th September 1948, should not be set aside. The order of the learned Magistrate on that date was to the following effect: Prosecution (Assistant Public Prosecutor) bas filed a petition stating that he may be permitted to withdraw prosecution against the accused persons and that the prosecution be withdrawn against (he accused in respect of all the charges. In view of this application under Section 494, Criminal P.C., I allow the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution, and I acquit the accused persons in respect of all the charges against them in this case. The accused's lawyer is also present, The Bench also directed the issue of another rule against the Sub- divisional Magistrate of Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, (Mr. Section N. Singh) asking him to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of Court for having issued or caused to be issued a letter to the trying Magistrate directing that a particular order be passed in the case, and also giving the terms of the order to be passed, which act prima facie constituted an interference with the exercise of judicial discretion by the Magistrate trying the case. The letter which the Sub-divisional Magistrate wrote to the trying Magistrate was dated 4 December 1947, and was in the following terms: "To All Magistrates trying rioting oases arising out of the last disturbances in the Tata Factory. 1. The accused persons have represented to Government for withdrawal of these cases and the Government are considering their prayer. These cases should, therefore, be adjourned for two months and be taken up on the 1 February 1948. The following order should be passed in these oases immediately and the parties informed. The accused persons are reported to have made a representation to Government for withdrawal this case and the matter is in correspondence with the Government. The case is, therefore, adjourned to 1 February 1948. Accused as before. Inform parties .

(2.) This may be returned to mo after perusal and a copy of this draft order should be kept by you. (Sd.) S.N. Singh, S.D.O., Dhalbhum,Jamshedpur. 2. A copy of the rules issued was served on the Advocate-General of Bihar on behalf of the Provincial Government so that the Provincial Government might have an opportunity of being heard in the matter, if they so desired.

(3.) We have now heard the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Provincial Government and the officer concerned in respect of both rules. Mr. S.N. Sahay appearing for the accused persons was not called upon by us to make his submissions.