1964 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
, J
Sumermal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 39 of 1961
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate 1, Advocate 2
For the Respondents:Advocate 3
In committal proceedings, a Magistrate should not weigh evidence but only determine if prima facie grounds for trial exist.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207A - Criminal Revision - Challenge to an order of discharge by a Sessions Judge - The Committing Magistrate erred in misinterpreting the scope of his duty to weigh evidence in committal proceedings, leading to a flawed discharge of accused based on assessments meant for trial. Evidence ought to be sufficient for prima facie commitment without converting proceedings into a trial. (Paras 3-10)
(B) Conspiracy, wrongful confinement, and dacoity under IPC - The order for commitment to Sessions Court concerning the accused should be guided strictly by the involvement indicated through prima facie evidence, without prejudice or reliance on unreliable testimony. (Paras 4-5, 17-21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the criminal re-examination context, establishing the parties involved and the charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. discussion on the commitment procedure error by the magistrate. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on the standards applied for evaluating evidence in committal. (Para 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. clarification of prima facie necessary for commitment without trial assessment. (Para 7 , 8) |
1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Motion No. 39 of 1961 by which he set aside the order of discharge of the 11 petitioners by the First Class Magistrate, Sri K.P. Dutta, in G. R. Case No. 1054 of 1959 and directed that they should be committed to the Court of Session to take their trial under S.395/342/120B.
2. It is unnecessary to deal with the facts at great length. One Sagarmaall Bhatia, who was examined as P.W. 2, was the local Agent of Messrs. Duff Mills Agencies of Calcutta, (hereinafter to be referred to as Duff and Co.) a firm of jute merchants, with their local office at Badarghat. Petitioner No. 3, Ramesh Chandra Debnath, who is also a jute merchant, and used to supply jute to various other merchants had entered into an agreement with the said Sagarmall Bhatia iii November, 1959 to supply 3,000 maunds of jute to Duff and Co. within that month and he had received several thousands of rupees as advance and had also supplied lot of jute before 24/11/1959. The petitioner No. 1 Sumermall Jain, is another respectable jute merchant having his office and Godown in Badarghat. The prosecution case was that on 24/11/1959, a conspiracy was entered into between Ramesh Chandra Debnath, Sumermall Jain, Jetmal Chhajar Petitioner No. 2, Rai Chand Baid, petitioner No. 5, and the approver Ram Ballav (P.W. 1) for the purpose of appropriating Duff and Co.'s moneys and with this object the said five persons met in the Godown of Sumermail Jain at Badarghat on 25/11/1959 at 11-00 a.m. and it was decided at the meeting that Ramesh Debnath should call at the Office of Duff and Co. and represent that about 500 to 600 maunds of jute were available at Mohanpur and that unless advance of money was made to Ramesh Debnath this stock might not be available thereafter. The further case was that Ramesh Debnath came back later and reported that Duff and Co.'s men would themselves go to Mohanpur with him and purchase the stock on payment of money. Then, he was instructed that after the purchase he should arrange to send the purchased jute to the Godown of Sumermall at Badarghat. After this, he went to Mohanpur with Duff and Co.'s men, namely, P.Ws. 3, 6 and 10 in two lorries - TRL Nos. 365 and 314 in the afternoon of 25/11/1959 and about 200 and odd maunds of jute were purchased by him on behalf of Duff and Co. from 6 or 7 merchants at Mohanpur including P.W. 8 and P.W. TT, for which, money was paid by Duff and Co.'s men into Ramesh's hands. Then the two lorries were loaded with the purchased jute and the challans for the jute were handed over to the two drivers of the lorries, namely, petitioners 8 and 9 by Dufi and Co.'s men P.Ws. 6 and 10 and the two lorries started with the jute and P.W. 3, the Durwan of Duff and Co. also accompanied the jute in one of the lorries and the two lorries arrived at Arundhutinagar drop gate at about 11-00 p.m. Sagarmall Bhatia and one Abhaya Chand Darsani (P.Ws. 2 and 5) met the lorries at the gate and at the request of P.W. 3, they also boarded the lorries. The two drivers, however, instead of taking the jute to the Office of Duff and Co. at Badarghat drove the two lorries inside the Godown of Sumermall Jain and there Sumermall Jain forcibly pulled down Sagarmall Bhatia (P.W. 2) from the lorry, while Rai Chand Baid and Jetmall Chhajar were said to have pulled down Abhya Chand Darsani (P.W. 5), and petitioners 6 and 11 namely, Narayan Choudhury and Sattar Sahani, were said to have pulled down P.W. 3 and they were said to have been threatened with death by Sumermall a