KONDIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who has had two previous convictions under Section 401, I.P.C., has been bound over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akola, under Section 110(a) read with Section 118, Criminal P.C., to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. This order was passed on 7th August 1928. It was sought to be revised under Section 125, Criminal P.C., by the District Magistrate, Akola, who, however, refused to interfere in the matter. An appeal was then filed by the applicant to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, but it was also rejected and he has, therefore, come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant that there is no evidence except that of the police officers to prove that the applicant was by habit a thief, and therefore in the absence of more reliable evidence no order under Section 110, Criminal P.C., should have been passed against him. It is also argued that the testimony of these police officers is only a matter of opinion and hearsay, and therefore was not admissible as a piece 0f evidence.

(3.) BUT as the learned Government Advocate rightly contended that is not enough to discharge the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against ?the applicant. It is admitted that the applicant has had two previous convictions under Section 40i, I.P.C., though a long time has elapsed since the last conviction. The latest incident that happened at the shop of Mt. Badji (P.W. 3) which has been believed in by all the three lower Courts coupled with the two previous convictions on charges of his belonging to and associated with a gang of habitual thieves and robbers, is, in my opinion, enough to warrant the passing of the order for binding the applicant over to be of good behaviour. I accordingly uphold the order sought to be revised and dismiss this application for revision.