1. This is an application in revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur who has upheld the order of a Magistrate of the First Class binding over the applicant Bangi Lal under Section 110, Criminal P.C.
2. A report was made against this man by the police of Ballia that he was a dangerous and desperate character and his being at large without security was hazardous to the community. No less than 43 witnesses were examined for the prosecution in order to show that this man is a dangerous and desperate character and he produced 47 witnesses in his defence to show that he was not. The Magistrate who tried the case went through all these witnesses in detail and believed those who were called for the prosecution in preference to those who were called for the defence. The Sessions Judge says that he carefully considered the evidence and heard arguments on both sides, but in his judgment he does not make mention of any single witness for the defence although one of them pays land revenue to the amount of Rs. 850 and a municipal tax of Rs. 55; another is the head master of a school and two at least are assessors of the Judge's Court. All these persons give definite evidence to the effect that the man is of good character, that he is not even quarrelsome and that they never heard that he indulges in the peculiar habit of brick-throwing with which he is credited by the prosecution witnesses. I have been carefully through the whole evidence in this case and I have very grave doubts as to whether this is a case which falls within the meaning of Clause (f), Section 110, Criminal P. C. The evidence against this Bangi Lal amounts to this. The man used to keep a pan shop in Ballia city.
3. An objection was made to his manner of keeping the shop and the company which assembled there, and the Municipal Board ordered the shop to be closed. He apparently was very angry at this order, and he subsequently obtained a modification of the order, for the shop was reopened in the name of his brother. Incidentally this Bangi Lal is the son of a chaprasi of the Munsif's Court, he is himself a candidate for a similar post, and nothing is known against his character in the Munsif's Court. It does not appear that any one has told the District Judge that he is an unsuitable person to be a chaprasi. The persons who give evidence against him are first and foremost the Chairman and other members of the Municipal Board, and, secondly, persons who are clearly under their influence. They are able to show that he has been engaged in some petty assaults with his neighbours, and he is in particular charged with threatening the cook of one Nanku Prasad. The cook is not a witness, but Nanku Prasad complained about the conduct of this man towards his cook. All this evidence may be true.
4. The man may be quarrelsome; he may have objected to the order of the Municipal Board closing his shop; he may have even threatened the members of the Board because of the action taken by them; but this does not make him a desperate character or one who is dangerous to the community. Even if he throws bricks into people's houses or on to the streets, though his allegation is far from being proved, I am not certain that this makes him a dangerous or desperate character, though it certainly arouses suspicions of his sanity. This view is supported by the case of Akhoy Kumar v. Queen Empress  5 C.W.N. 249. My own opinion of the evidence is that the allegation against this man that he habitually throws bricks is overstated. He may have once thrown bricks at somebody or into somebody's house, but I cannot believe that a person who makes a habit of so doing could obtain the support of a considerable number of his neighbours who totally deny that he throws bricks or that they ever heard that anybody was frightened of him. I consider that this case has been greatly exaggerated and that it was no case for the operation of Section 110, Criminal P. C. If the accused has assaulted anybody those persons should proceed against him in the ordinary course on the specific charges which they are prepared to allege. In my opinion this is an improper attempt to bring within the very vide provision of Section 110, Criminal P. C , a man possibly a troublesome and illtempered man who has managed to fall foul of soma parsons in high places in the town in which he lives, I allow the application, sat aside the whole proceeding and order that the applicant be discharged and the bonds executed be cancelled.