Skip to content


Raj Karan and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.709
AppellantRaj Karan and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
..... - 1. five persons raj karan, baldeo, golai, ram nandan and bansdeo, have been bound over by the district magistrate of mirzapur, to be of good behaviour. thereupon as the police information gave the district magistrate reason to believe that it was necessary to bind over some of the persons to be of good behaviour, he took proceedings against these five persons out of the eight. 191 that proceedings under section 110, criminal procedure code, should not be instituted with a view to bind down persons on an indefinite charge after prosecution against them on definite charges under the indian penal code, have failed. they further found that the evidence in that case was perfectly worthless. the evidence for the prosecution, if true, discloses a state of affairs which makes it absolutely..........j.1. five persons raj karan, baldeo, golai, ram nandan and bansdeo, have been bound over by the district magistrate of mirzapur, to be of good behaviour. the record of the case has been submitted to this court by the sessions judge, with a recommendation that the magistrate's order be set aside. it appears that these persons together with three others ware sent up for trial on a charge of dacoity. the district magistrate found that the evidence was insufficient. an attempt was made to obtain evidence sufficient for a conviction under section 400, indian penal code, but that evidence was not forth coming. thereupon as the police information gave the district magistrate reason to believe that it was necessary to bind over some of the persons to be of good behaviour, he took proceedings.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. Five persons Raj Karan, Baldeo, Golai, Ram Nandan and Bansdeo, have been bound over by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur, to be of good behaviour. The record of the case has been submitted to this Court by the Sessions Judge, with a recommendation that the Magistrate's order be set aside. It appears that these persons together with three others ware sent up for trial on a charge of dacoity. The District Magistrate found that the evidence was insufficient. An attempt was made to obtain evidence sufficient for a conviction under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, but that evidence was not forth coming. Thereupon as the Police information gave the District Magistrate reason to believe that it was necessary to bind over some of the persons to be of good behaviour, he took proceedings against these five persons out of the eight. An order under Section 112 was duly passed and duly communicated to them. The evidence for the prosecution was taken in their presence and they were allowed an opportunity of producing evidence in their defence, which they did. The Sessions Judge has remarked: 'It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in Alep Pramanik v. King-Emperor 11 C.W.N. 413; 5 Cr. L.J. 191 that proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be instituted with a view to bind down persons on an indefinite charge after prosecution against them on definite charges under the Indian Penal Code, have failed.' This quotation apparently has been taken from the head-note of the report. A perusal of the judgment, however, will show that the Calcutta High Court laid down no such, rule at all. The facts of that case are entirely different, and the High Court found that the proceedings taken against the accused were malicious proceedings taken by a Magistrate who had certainly laid himself open to very severe criticism. They further found that the evidence in that case was perfectly worthless. The facts in the present case are very different indeed. The evidence for the prosecution, if true, discloses a state of affairs which makes it absolutely necessary that the five men in question be bound over to be of good behaviour. The order of the District Magistrate appears to be a perfectly good and valid one, and I see no cause for interference. Let the record be returned.


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