Graham, J - (1.)This is an appeal by the Government of Bengal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Balurghat in the district of Dinajpur acquitting one Satish Chandra Roy, an Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, and four others on a charge of extortion under Section 384, Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The case for the prosecution was shortly as follows:
(3.)A dacoity had taken place in the neighbouring village of Gangarampur, in which one Asharuddin, a servant of the complainant Alamdi Mahalat, had been sent up by the Police. On the evening of the 16 March 1923, the live accused came to the house, where the complainant lived with his uncle Oli Mahalat and the latter's mother Pathali, for the ostensible purpose of searching the house for stolen property, their real object however being to extort money, and the Assistant Sub-Inspector threatened not only to search the house but to tie up with a rope and challan the complainant and other occupants of the house unless money was paid. At first a sum of Rs. 5,000 was demanded but eventually after further negotiations, in which Anath Bandhu Ganguly and Kaharulla participated, the inmates of the house although innocent were induced through fear to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000. Of this amount Rs. 100 was produced from the house, and the balance of Rs. 900 was obtained as a loan from Pathali's nephew Shefatullah, who lives in an adjoining village. The accused then having accomplished their purpose left the house. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of their case including the complainant Alamdi, Oli Mahalat, Pathali, Tuku and Shefatulla. In due course a charge was framed against all five accused under Section 384, Indian Penal Code. The first four accused pleaded an alibi, and the firs: accused Satish Chandra Roy and second accused Anath Bandhu further alleged that the case had been concocted by Sub-Inspector Kali Kanta Biswas. Judgment was delivered on the 31 August, and the Magistrate, while rejecting the defences of alibi which had been set up, and the suggestion of concoction by the Sub- Inspector, and while holding that the prosecution case had not been disproved, gave all the accused the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them. Against that order the Government has preferred this appeal, and the main contention which has been urged before us is that on the findings at which the learned Magistrate arrived, he ought not to have acquitted the accused, and that he was in error in giving them the benefit of the doubt after finding that the prosecution case had not been disproved.