Patna High Court
The King vs Moule Bux And Ors. on 29 October, 1948
Equivalent citations: 1949CRILJ488, AIR 1949 PATNA 233
JUDGMENT Das, J.
1. On an examination of the record of the case, Emperor v. Moula Bux and others, pending before Mr. B. K. Lai, a Magistrate ex-ercising first-class powers at Jamshedpur (C. B. Case No. 324A of 1947), a Bench of this Court issued a rule against the accused persons as also the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum, direct-ing them to Show cause why the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 15th September 1948, should not be set aside. The order of the learned Magistrate on that date was to the following effect:
Prosecution (Assistant Public Prosecutor) has filed a petition stating that he may be permitted to withdraw prosecution against the accused persons and that the prosecution he withdrawn against the accused in respect of all the charges. In view of this application under Section 494, Criminal F. C, I allow the Assistant Public Proseoutor to withdraw the prosecution, and I acquit the accused persons in respect of all the charges against them in this case. The accused's lawyer is also present.
The Bench also directed the issue of another rule against the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dhal-bhum, Jamshedpur, (Mr. S. N. Singh) asking him to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of Court for having issued or caused to be issued a letter to the trying Magistrate direoting that a particular order be passed in the case, and also giving the terms of the order to be passed, which act prima facie constituted an interference with the exercise of judicial disore. tion by the Magistrate trying the case. The letter which the Sub-divisional Magistrate wrote to the tiying Magistrate was dated 4th December 1917, and was in the following terms:
To All Magistrates trying rioting oases arising out of the last disturbances in the Tata Factory. 1. The accused persons have represented to Government for withdrawal of these cases and the Government are considering their prayer. These cases should, therefore, be adjourned for two months and be taken op on the let February 1948, The following order should be passed in these cases immediately and the parties informed. 'The accused persons are reported to have made a representation to Government for withdrawal of this case and the matter is in correspondence with the Government. The case is, therefore, adjourned to 1st February 1948, Accused as before. Inform parties'.
2. This may be returned to me after perusal and a copy of thiB draft order should be kept by you.
(Sd.) S. N. Singh, S.D.O., Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur.
2. A copy of the rules issued was served on the Advocate-General of Bihar on behalf of the Provincial Government so that the Provincial Government might have an opportunity of being-beard in the matter, if they so desired.
3. We have now heard the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Provincial Government and the officer concerned in respect of be to rules, Mr. S. N. Sahay appearing for the-aooused persons was not called upon by us to? make his submissions.
4. The material facts of the case may be-shortly stated. On 7th May 1947, at about 3 P.M. there was an occurrence in the office of the Electrical Engineer inside the Tata Iron and? Steel Works at Jamshedpur. A orat information of the occurrence was given by Mr. A. R. Gupta, Electrical Engineer, on 8th May 1947,. at S P.M. This first information stated that-when Mr. Gupta and certain members of the supervising staff were in their office in connection with a Safety Committee meeting, some of the workers raided the office, damaged some properties and assaulted some of the officers. A police investigation followed and a charge-sheet against 17 accused persons was submitted on 18th June 1947. The trial commenced before-Mr. E. K, Lai on 6th July 1947, and continued on several dates. The examination and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses concluded on 16th September 1947, by which date-one of the accused persons was dead, and the trial proceeded against the remaining 16 accused persons. On 15th September 1947, the statements of the 16 accused persons were recorded under Section 342, Criminal P. C. On 20th September 1947, some defence witnesses were examined and cross-examined. On 6th October 1947, arguments were beard, and the case was postponed till 11th October 1947, for judgment. Judgment was not, however, ready on that date, nor on the nest date fixed, which was the 18th October 1947. On 6th November 1947, an order was recorded to the effect that the accused persons-had moved the Provincial Government for with-drawal of the case. The trying Magistrate then noted as follows:
Instruction on phone has been received from the Sub-Divisional Officer to adjourn the case. To 22nd November 1947. Accused as before.
It appears that on the 13th October 1947, one Mr. M. John, President of the Tata Workers,, Union, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Bihar for withdrawing the case on the ground that the occurrence arose as a result of the introduction of the New be nus Soheme which-had many defects and had exasperated the workers. From 6th November 1947 till 13th September 1948, successive adjournments were given on the ground that the orders of the Provincial Government had not been received. On 15th December 1947 an adjournment was given in pursuance of and in terms of the order which had been communicated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dhalbhum (Mr. S. N. Singh) to the trying Magistrate in his letter dated 4th December 1947, which I have already quoted at the beginning of this judgment. On 13th Sep. ember 1948, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition for permission to withdraw from the case, presumably on receipt of an order from the Provincial Government, and then the learned Magistrate passed the order to which I have already made a reference.
5. Two questions arise for consideration. The first is about the propriety of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13th September 1018. It is well settled now by a number of deoisions of this Court as also other High Courts in India that an order of acquittal or discharge passed under 8. 494, Criminal P. C, consequent on the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution of any person with the consent of the Court, is a judicial order and liable to revision by this Court, if the discretion vested in the Magistrate to give consent has been improperly or arbitrarily exeroiBed. Ordinarily, this Court is reluctant to interfere with the discretion given, but undoubtedly has power to do so, and will do so . in speoial circumstances where the withdrawal appears to be manifestly improper. The learned Advocate. 'General has filed an affidavit in this case made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dhalbhum in which, among other things, it has been stated
6. The second question arises out of the rule for contempt of Court against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has in his affidavit- admitted having issued the letter of 4th December 1947. He has stated that he issued the letter in good faith and did not intend to interfere with the course of justice or cause any prejudice. He has further stated that he realised now that his action was not in conformity with law, and has expressed regret for it. The officer concerned Was present in Court during the hearing of this case. Having heard the learned Advocate-General, we have decided to accept the apology offered by the officer in question. It must not be understood, however, that we look with lenience at such conduct on the part of an officer occupying the position of a Sub-divisional Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Magistrate ocou-pied a position superior to that of the Magistrate who was trying the case, and should have known that sending a letter with the terms of the order to be passed in the matter of an adjournment of the case was a clear interference with the judicial discretion of the trying Magistrate. Once again the attention of all Magistrates must be drawn to the observations made by my Lord the Chief Justice in The King v. Earihar Singh and others (Cr. Misc. Case no. 380 of 1948 : (A. I B. (36) 1949 pat 320) decided on 6th September 1948,-in the matter of adjournment of oases. The conduct and hearing of a case must be controlled by the Magistrate trying it, and it is he alone who must exercise his judicial discretion in the matter of an adjournment of the case, unfettered by any outside autherity. It must be Stated once again in unequivocal terms that no autherity howsoever high has any right to dictate to the Magistrate as to how he should exercise his discretion, and any one who does so, be he a superior executive officer, or not, places himself in peril of being proceeded against for contempt of Court. Mr. S. N. Singh has been dearly guilty of oontempt, inasmuch he prevented the unfettered exercise of discretion by the trying Magistrate, We are accepting his apology and regret, as this is his first offence and was committed before the observations made by my Lord the Chief Justice in the case referred to above.
7. Before I conclude I should like to refer is another matter which has been incidentally brought to our notice. In this case this Court asked for the record with a report by means of .a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Agarwala, C.J.
8. I agree.
Narayan, J.
9. I agree.