AMRIT MAJHI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jahiruddi preferred a complaint against the petitioners charging them with theft. The Magistrate receiving complaints, who was the Subdivisional Officer, suspecting that he had to do with a civil dispute, referred the complaint to a Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. On the transfer of the Deputy Magistrate to another district, the Subdivisional Officer made a second order referring the complaint to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report. Unfortunately the Sub-Deputy Magistrate fell ill and, on the 9th November, a third order was made referring the complaint to Babu P.L. Neogy, an Honorary Magistrate, exercising second class powers, again for enquiry and report. Babu P.L. Neogy, after examining the complainant and some of his witnesses on oath, submitted his report with the depositions, taken by him to the Subdivisional Officer on the 16th November 1918 On the 19th November the District Magistrate, for reasons stated by him, withdrew the case to his own file. He read Babu P.L. Neogy s report, and being of opinion that a prima facie case had been made out he issued summons against the petitioners under Section 379 of the Penal Code.

(2.) The case arises out of a dispute between landlord and tenant in the Mathurapur estate. The product known as lac is collected from certain trees standing on lands leased to tenants of the estate. The landlords or their farmer claims the right to enter upon the tenants lands to collect the lac. The tenants, of whom two are petitioners before us, assert a right to the trees. The dispute had led to the charge of theft brought against the petitioners by Jahiruddi, who is the farmer s son-in-law, and to a counter charge of theft brought by. one of the petitioners against Jahiruddi and others.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners (i) that the Subdivisional Officer had no jurisdiction to refer the complaint against them to another Magistrate for enquiry and report, and that the orders in the form in which they were made, amounted in the result to the transfer of the case to Babu P.L. Neogy for disposal; and (ii) that the District Magistrate s order withdrawing the case to his own file was improper.