1. We think that in this case there is just sufficient material to enable us to say that the Magistrate ought to go on and make further enquiry into the case.
2. I entirely concur in the remarks which fell from the learned Advocate for the accused Jogesh Chandra Sarkar that process ought not to be issued against a man, unless there are materials to justify the issue of process. The mere fact that a man states certain things in a petition of complaint, which on being examined on oath he does not substantiate, is not sufficient to justify the Magistrate in issuing process.
3. But this is a case where a good deal depends upon what inferences are to be drawn from certain facts. We have not only to rend the evidence given by the complainant and the allegations that have been made in his petition of complaint, but also to consider the inferences to be drawn from them. In addition to that there are certain other facts stated in the affidavit of the complainant, namely, that he paid his premium for the months between July and December and that he wrote both to the agent and the Secretary, and received no answer. As I have said before, on the whole we think there is sufficient material here to justify the contention that the Magistrate ought to go on and make further enquiry. The Rule is, therefore, discharged.
4. We want to be distinctly understood that the discharge of this Rule by us does not in any way amount to an expression of our opinion as to the merits of the case. It may turn out upon the inquiry by the Magistrate that there is no case against the accused Jogesh Chandra Sarkar. On the other hand it may turn out that there is a case against him.