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 22nd 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.
4. The object of Section 110, Criminal P.C., is to offer protection to the members of the public and is not intended to be an engine of oppression. The Courts below have got, in all cases coming up either under Sections 108, 109 or 110, Criminal P. C, to pay strict regard to the question whether the evidence produced is legal evidence in the case on the question of repute. Nothing is more easy than to put forward a general charge against a certain person that he is a burglar and thief. The said statement has got to be tested in the light of tangible facts and particulars if there are any such facts to support the story. If there are no such facts, the evidence loses its value.
5. The maintenance of a history-sheet may have its uses and a history-sheet may in some cases form good evidence against the accused. The difficulty which we experience in case after case is that it turns out that the history-sheet is no more than an ex parte proceeding and that the accused does not know upon what ground the history-sheet has been opened against him, nor does he know what facts it contains.
6. We are in entire agreement with the view of the learned Sessions Judge and are clearly of opinion that the present application for revision ought not to have been made. The learned Government Advocate as usual with him has placed the case for the Crown in its true and correct perspective. We dismiss this application.