LAWS(PVC)-1919-3-81

PANCHANON BOSE Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On March 10, 1919
PANCHANON BOSE Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Umed Ali has been convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Eta. 400 or in default to undergo a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment; the remaining six petitioners have been convtcted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code: the sentences passed upon three of them are the same as the sentence passed upon Umed Ali. The remaining three have been sentenced each to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to undergo a farther period of three months rigorous imprisonment. The Rule called upon the District Magistrate of Faridpore to show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that regard being had to the facts found and the circumstances in evidence, the Sessions Judge errad in law in coming to the conclusion that possession of the land in question was with the Khas Mahal authorities and that in consequence the conviction of the petitioners on the charge of rioting as framed could not in law be sustained or why such other or further order should not be made as might seem fib to this Court.

(2.) The common object of the unlawful assembly of which the petitioners are said to have been members is stated in the charge to have been to cause obstruction to measurement and demarcation of Khas Mehal land by Kanongo Babu Asutosh Das Gupta and Khas Mahal Tahsildar Babu Lalit Mohan Acharjee. The charge assumes as a fact that the land on which the alleged riot took place is land be longing to the Government as a Khas Mahal. The land no doubt forms part of an area shown in the Thak map of 1857 as Government Estate No. 380, Bhattichar Baludhun. The estate is surrounded by lands belonging to the Patpasar Zamindars, of whom the principal present representative appears to be Maijuddin Biswas. The following rough sketch map shows the portion of the land to which the dispute relates.

(3.) The plot marked D is admittedly a portion of the Government estate. The nest strip of land to the west (C) is also now admitted to be a part of the Gov-ernment estate, C is bounded on the east by the line and on the west by the line Xi(sic), X18. To the west of C there are two plots marked E and W and the occurrence took place on W.