Skip to content


Muhammad Asghar Khan Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.134
AppellantMuhammad Asghar Khan
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....for revision oil an order oil the district magistrate of azamgarh dismissing the applicant's appeal against an order of a magistrate of the 1st class, requiring the applicant to give security for his good behaviour for one year. then there is the evidence of some witnesses who say in a general way that the applicant is a bad character. the third class of evidence mentioned by me at best shows no more than that the applicant is a very troublesome person and a man who declines to pay his debts and abuses people who sell goods to him. the general evidence of bad character may be disregarded. i have no doubt that the real reason why proceedings were taken against this man is that several boys complain that he had made indecent overtures to them......of some witnesses who say in a general way that the applicant is a bad character. the third class of evidence against the applicant consists of the statements of tradespeople and others living near him who have had trouble with him for one reason or another. the oil-seller, for instance, says that the applicant bought from him. a bottle of oil worth be anna and afterwards refused to pay for it and abased the seller. a butcher says tint the applicant is of a cantankerous nature and insists upon having another piece of most instead of the piece which is offered to him. the first says that he has worked for the applicant, but got only abused when he asked for his wages. the milk-seller says that the applicant took some milk from him without payment. a neighbour says that he bought.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. Thin is an application for revision oil an order oil the District Magistrate of Azamgarh dismissing the applicant's appeal against an order of a Magistrate of the 1st class, requiring the applicant to give security for his good behaviour for one year. The evidence against the applicant is of a most unusual character. There is first the evidence of several boys who say that the applicant made indecent overturse to them when they passed his shop on their way to school. Then there is the evidence of some witnesses who say in a general way that the applicant is a bad character. The third class of evidence against the applicant consists of the statements of tradespeople and others living near him who have had trouble with him for one reason or another. The oil-seller, for instance, says that the applicant bought from him. a bottle of oil worth be anna and afterwards refused to pay for it and abased the seller. A butcher says tint the applicant is of a cantankerous nature and insists upon having another piece of most instead of the piece which is offered to him. The first says that he has worked for the applicant, but got only abused when he asked for his wages. The milk-seller says that the applicant took some milk from him without payment. A neighbour says that he bought some shoes from the applicant on approval and when he returned the shoes the applicant abused him. The evidence of the 3rd class, i.e., of the shop-keepers and neighbours appears to me to be totally irrelevant. The applicant has been required to give security under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code Clause (f), i.e., he is said to be so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The third class of evidence mentioned by me at best shows no more than that the applicant is a very troublesome person and a man who declines to pay his debts and abuses people who sell goods to him. Such evidence does not bring the applicant within Clause (f), Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The general evidence of bad character may be disregarded. It amounts to no more than that the applicant is a nuisance to his neighbours. I have no doubt that the real reason why proceedings were taken against this man is that several boys complain that he had made indecent overtures to them. Their complaint was made to the school master who passed it on to the Tahsildar and the Police. In my opinion if the evidence is proved it does not justify. proceedings against the applicant under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. I allow this application and set aside the order requiring the applicant to give security.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //