Calcutta High Court
Sadat Ali And Ors. vs Emperor on 28 July, 1920
Equivalent citations: 58IND. CAS.826, AIR 1920 CALCUTTA 412
JUDGMENT
1. The case must go bask for re-hearing of the appeal.
2. The case was one under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. Fifty-four witnesses were examined for the procreation and 56 for the defense. The learned Magistrate no doubt says that "the Sub-Divisional Officer was right in his conclusion that all the four accused had the reputation of being burglars and thieves." In an earlier passage the learned Magistrate referred to the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and observed: "He believed in the evidence of about 20 witnesses for prosecution and found that it was not balanced and far less outweighed by the defence evidence."
3. The question, however, was not whether the evidence for the defense outweighed the evidence for the prosecution but whether the evidence for the prosecution was sufficient to establish the case against the petitioner and we think that the learned Magistrate ought to have some to a more definite finding.
4. The case is, therefore, sent bask to the learned District Magistrate for re-hearing of the appeal in so far as the petitioner Sadat Ali is concerned on the merits according to law.
5. The petitioner Sadat Ali will be admitted to bail, pending the re hearing of the appeal, to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.