JUDGMENT

Walsh, J. - This is an application ii revision against an order made by a Firs Class Magistrate u/s 110, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the applicant Bisheshwar Dayal, to give security in Rs. 300 or to be detained in custody for three years. The cases in which this Court can, I think, interfere in revision on questions of fast, particularly u/s 110, Criminal Procedure Code, are rare. On the other hand the administration of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be very carefully watched. If there is clear and apparently credible evidence in support of the prosecution case and the decision has been arrived at in a well-balanced judgment, speaking for myself, I decline to interfere. Where evidence has been misunderstood or ignored, difficulties have not been seen, or the Rules of evidence have not been followed, it becomes a very difficult matter and if the judgment itself does not commend itself to the Appellate Court, one is inclined to look narrowly at the grounds upon which a man has been bound down. In this case I propose to interfere merely upon a most unsatisfactory impression left upon my mind by the substantive evidence, for the prosecution on which the case has been built up and by the judgment of the Magistrate. I am not acting on the defence evidence at all. I am treating the case as though none had been given for the defense. The application is really against the order of the Sessions Judge, but it is obvious that the Sessions Judge has reviewed the case in a very perfunctory way without noticing the palpable defeats in the evidence to which I will refer in a moment. He has even misunderstood it because he says: "the article in the paper was in the middle of 1920, whereas the entry of Bisheshwar Dayal's name in the history sheet and the transactions in which he was concerned date bask for many years." At the time that order was written it was only one month old and it is obvious that the learned Judge had not studied the case very thoroughly. I, therefore, pass by the Sessions Judge's judgment and examine the original evidence and the judgment of the Magistrate, and I do so with some care and possibly superfluous minuteness, because it is desirable to assist Magistrates and give them some standard to guide them in Bases under this Section, and also because a Magistrate, who with the assistance of the Police has worked up a case of this kind and tried it at great length with a host of witnesses and decided it to his own satisfaction, naturally finds it difficult to understand why the High Court suddenly undoes his work of months by a short order without explanation. I think it is due to the Magistrate to point out the grounds on which this Court interferes. For that reason I always go into considerable detail when I am interfering with an important order of the Court below, I will state particularly the two grounds upon which I interfere.

(1) The evidence of the Police and of their principal witnesses is extremely vague, general in character and consists almost entirely of repetition.

(2) In the only case in which they attempt to bring home to the applicant complicity with a definite piece of badmashi, namely, assisting in the attempt of a thief to avoid arrest, they have come hopelessly to grief.

2. It is quite clear that the four principal Police witnesses have put in the forefront of their complaint against the accused that he has been a frequent defence witness. This is rather a dangerous ground to take up. It would be very hard on members of the general public if, merely because they happened on occasions to be witnesses for the defense, it should be held to be a ground for trying them as badmashes. If a man is a professional witness and constantly gives untruthful evidence in the Court, that is an offence in itself. In this case, there is too much reason to fear that the Police have felt some times hurt, or have taken it sometimes as a grievance against the applicant, that he should have given ev