EMPEROR Vs. KUDUA BARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings have been instituted against Kudua Bari under Section 110, Criminal P. C, on the allegation that he was a habitual burglar and thief and that his character was so desperate and dangerous that it was a menace to the community at large to allow him to remain without being bound over. Mr. Budh Sen,Magistrate, First Class of Mainpuri, under his order dated 22 January, 1929, held that the accused was a habitual thief and burglar but there was no evidence that he was so desperate and dangerous as to justify his being bound over on the second ground. The learned Magistrate ordered the accused to execute a personal bond for Rs. 200 with two sureties each in the same amount to be of good behaviour for a term of three years. The accused was not in a position to furnish security and the matter was placed before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 123(2), Criminal P.C.

(2.) The judgment of the trial Court is an excellent model of what a judgment should not be. It is summary sketch and most unconvincing. Without caring to weigh the value of the evidence and without trying to consider whether the evidence produced before him was legal evidence of repute or otherwise, he has pronounced judgment in this case.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has taken considerable pains in analysing and dissecting the evidence and in testing their value. The whole evidence in this case may be placed under two groups: (1) evidence which cannot be treated as evidence of repute and is no evidence at all, and (2) evidence which is legally admissible but is not sufficient or reliable. The learned Sessions Judge has sifted this evidence very carefully and we have not the slightest doubt as to the correctness of his conclusion.