Bhaso Singh And Others v. Emperor Opposite Party.

1. This is an application for revision in a criminal case, which was instituted by complaint made as long ago as 13th February, 1915. Shortly stated the complaint was that the accused had been guilty of rioting and causing simple hurt to members of the complainant's party. The Magistrate convicted the applicants on 29th November, 1915, so that the proceedings lasted no less than nine months in the first Court. There was an appeal and the Sessions Judge, not being satisfied with the trial of the case by the Magistrate set aside the conviction and ordered a re-trial, but at the same time directed that the evidence already on the record should be treated as evidence in the case. His order was a curious mixture of an order under S. 423 and an order under S. 428, not unlike that which we had to consider in the case of Gajanand Thakur v. Emperor(1). Since the case just referred to another case has been before this Court in which the same sort of irregular order was passed by a Sessions Judge, and we take this opportunity of saying that we hope that the provisions of these sections will be more carefully observed in the future. The result of the order passed by the Sessions Judge in this case was that some sort of further enquiry took place and the Magistrate again convicted the applicants and bound them over to keep the peace. Again there was an appeal to the Sessions Judge and that appeal was dismissed. The applicants then applied to this Court in revision. On their application the District Magistrate was called upon to shew cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that the order of the Sessions Judge was contrary to the provisions of Sections 423 and 428 of the Cr PC, and consequently all subsequent proceedings were void. Cause has been shown by the Magistrate and the Government-Advocate has appeared to represent his views. There can be no doubt that the first order passed by the Sessions Judge was irregular. In order to ascertain whether the applicants have been prejudiced by the irregularity, it would be necessary for us to go into the merits of the case.

2. We have neither the time nor the inclination to do this. It is primarily the duty of the Courts below to find the facts. The first order of the Sessions Judge and all subsequent proceedings must be set aside. The only question is whether further proceedings should be permitted. On behalf of the applicants stress is laid down on the fact that they have in various instalments served something over a month's rigorous imprisonment under one or other of the convictions recorded against them and we are urged on this account to disallow further proceedings. On behalf of the Crown it is urged that the case is one of some importance and that the applicants should not be acquitted merely on account of the irregularities which have taken place.

3. It is said that there was a serious not but apparently no serious injury was done to any one. As already stated these proceedings have been pending since February 1915. In view of this fact and in view also of the fact that the applicants have been in jail for a considerable period we think that we ought not to allow further proceedings to take place. We therefore allow this application and we set aside the convictions of the applicants and direct that they be relased.

V.S/R.K

4. Convictions set aside.