SANTIRAM MANDAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been issued to show cause why a commitment to the Court of Sessions should not be quashed on two of the grounds set forth in the petitioner's petition of motion. The commitment has been made for the trial of the petitioner on a charge under Secs.211, 193 and 194, I.P.C. The two grounds on which the Rule his been issued are: First for that in view of the fact that the judicial enquiry in respect of which the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence with which ha has been charged was in regard to a prosecution which was not legally instituted, no judicial notice could be taken of the complaint made or of the evidence given by the petitioner both of which are nonest in the eye of law, and the commitment made on the basis thereof is not sustainable in law.

(2.) Second : For that the order of commitment is vitiated by the fact that the complainant was not examined at the enquiry before the Magistrate.

(3.) Now the relevant facts are these : The petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate at Howrah against five persons including one Mr. Mould. It was stated in the complaint that on 7 March 1928 a lock out was declared by the authorities of the East Indian Railway against 14,000 men, working in their Lillooah Workshop who had gone on strike, that on 28 March 1928, when some of the strikers were proceeding homewards they were held up by some Police Officers, some Goorkha guards of the Watch and Ward Department of the Railway and-some men of the Railway Volunteer Rifles. It was stated that offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code were committed by the accused persons. The specific allegation made against Mr. Mould was in these words: While all this was going on Mr. Mould came running from the direction of the Loco quarters and snatching off a gun from a Goorkha guard, fired it without any previens warning on the strikers. One man was hit and fell down by the side of the road.