Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Abinash Chandra Mitra vs The Emperor on 15 August, 1907
Equivalent citations: 1 Ind Cas 415
Bench: Mitra, Fletcher


1. The petitioner was charged with others with committing an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. The Deputy Magistrate after going carefully through the evidence against the accused discharged all of them except 3 under Section 253 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum set aside the order of discharge and directed a farther enquiry under Section 437 of the Code. As regards the petitioner before us, all that the Sessions Judge says for a further enquiry is this: It will, of course, be the duty of the Court below to see whether he could have any “motive to join in the riot and whether the evidence is sufficient against him.” It was the duty of the Sessions Judge, before directing a further enquiry as regards the petitioner, to have perused the evidence and stated what the grounds were which induced him to direct a further enquiry. The mere fact that the petitioner was one of the accused would not be sufficient to direct a further enquiry as regards him, simply because there was such a direction as regards the other accused. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge with reference to the petitioner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.165 seconds.