The revisional court can interfere with a finding of fact only if it is incorrect or improper, i.e., if no reasonable person could have arrived at that finding on the evidence.

This petition by Jahar Lal Chandra, Benoy Kumar Chandra and Benoy. Kumar Chandra who were summoned under Sec. 342 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate on the orders of the Sessions Judge for further enquiry under S. 436 of the Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge and also the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The facts briefly are that Rabindra, the opposite party No. 2 filed before the Magistrate at Sealdah on 30-10-1958, a complaint against four persons, the present three petitioners and another Jagadanonda Chandra alleging that he was the Cashier of the firm of Messrs. P.C. Chandra of which the three petitioners and their brother, Jagadananda were the proprietors and that as such on 17-07-1958 he as usual at the end of the day's work made over the entire cash balance including a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Jahar Lal at about 9-30 or 10 P.M. that on the 20th July at about 10-30 or 11. A.M. Rabindra was sent for from his residence by the proprietors through two of their durwans and that when he went to their residence at P-24, C.I.T. Road, Entally, he was taken to the first floor by the durwans and was kept confined in a room and abused by them and he was questioned as to where he had kept the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. His definite case was that all the four brothers were in the room and two of the durwans guarded the door of the room. It was further alleged that Benoy brought out revolver from another room and Benoy brought a dagger and they threatened to murder the complainant and that Jahar Lal and Jagadananda also threatened him and they compelled him to write out a certain statement on a piece of paper admitting that he had abstracted the sum of Rs. 3,000/- which was alleged to have disappeared from the cash box. It was further alleged that he was wrongfully confined in that room up to 3 P.M. that day. The learned Magistrate after the complainant was examined on oath ordered a search warrant for the tokcha-khata and then on seeing the return on the search warrant said that the story needed testing and ordered a judicial enquiry by another Magistrate. During the judicial enquiry a number of witnesses was examined on behalf of the complainant including himself. On the question as to what actually happened on 20-07-1958 in the residence of the accused petitioners the evidence of the complainant and only two of his witnesses, namely, Nabani and Satyaban is material. The evidence of Nabani and Satyaban does not Corroborate that of the complainant that he was threatened by two of the accused persons with a dagger and a revolver, respectively. One of these witnesses Nabani, in his evidence, speaks of a conversation between the complainant on the one hand and the proprietors on the other, in the course of which Rabindra is alleged to have told Jahar Lal and Benoy Babu, "Why are you getting so furious? You are speaking of money, I shall pay the money." Then Jahar Babu stated, 'Why should you pay the money if only I ask you to do so ?" and Rabindra said, "you are my employer, I am doing your work, I shall have to pay the money if you ask me to do so," and he stated further, you have asked me to deposit the money. I shall do so. If I am to do your work I must abide by what you say"; and then Jahar Babu stated, "if you want to pay the money do it here and now." Then Rabindra said where he would get the money at that time and at that place and Jahar Babu suggested that Rabindra could bring ornaments from his house and make payments then and there and that Jahar Babu stated futher that Rabindra could give a written document in case he failed to pay the money then and there and Rabindra replied that he had nothing to write in the matter. Then Jahar Babu and Benoy Babu or both, or either of them pressed Rabindra to come to a decision on the spot and they insisted that Rabindra must do something then and there. The fact that neither S