- (1.) THIS is an application for action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act gainst the District Magistrate of Banda. The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 110, Cri. P. C. were launched against the applicant which were decided by a First Class Magistrate on 23-12-1963. The applicant was, however, discharged by the Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 23-12-63. The relevant portion wherefrom reads as follows: "in fact I am of the opinion that Beta should have never been prosecuted in this case under Section 110, Cri. P. C and his prosecution in the case itself can be called as rash and uncalled for. There has been unnecessary waste of public money and time in this reckless prosecution. From the findings recorded bv me it has been positively proved that Beta opposite party is of good character and is not at all hazardous to the community and does not habitually take any part in the commission of offences involving the breach of peace To call him as a thief or a house-breaker is most absurd and shows bankruptcy of brain. The result is that the notice given to him should be discharged "
(2.) A case under Section 307, I. P. C. was also instituted against the applicant which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1964. The applicant was, however, acquitted by the learned Judge by his judgment dated 31-7-64, The relevant portions wherefrom run as follows: "the shortcoming discrepancies, absurdities and incongruities in that evidence have also been pointed out during that discussion. I need not repeat them over again. It is difficult on that evidence even to accept that any encounter as alleged, took place between the police party and the badmashes at the alleged date, time and place and much more to accept that the accused persons standing trial took part in that encounter. A word also need be said regarding the investigation of the case. The investigation of the case lacks much in straightforwardness. It is all fabricated and mere farcial and superficial than real. The only inference that can be deduced from the aforesaid facts is that in reality no investigation was done and all acts shown to have been done towards investigation are farzi. . . . . It would thus be seen that there is entirely nothing in the case to earn the confidence of the Court and to make the prosecution story every bit of which pre-eminently lacks in reality and actually acceptable even in the remotest manner. I feel painfully constrained to observe that the instant case furnishes a glaring instance of concerted highhandedness of the police of Manikpur G. R. P. Station and civil Police of Karwi. There is no escape from the conclusion that the whole of the case is false and fabricated and all the accused persons should be held not guilty of the offence charged and should be acquitted thereof.
(3.) THE opposite party has admitted in his counter affidavit that he knew about the aforesaid decisions and yet the petitioner was arrested on 5-1-65 at 2 p. m. at Banda Railway Station under an order of the opposite party issued under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, inter alia, on the following grounds: "2. That you on 30-3-62 at Railway Station Bahalpurwa, Central Railway attempted to commit the murder of Sri Ranjit Singh Bhandhari, Inspector, G. R. P. and his party and used fire arms along with your gang of bad characters and were prosecuted for the said offence. . . . . . 10. That you were challaned under Section 110, Cri. P. C. and 107/117, Cri. P. C. but you terrorised the witnesses so much that none could dare to depose against you. In the end the petitioner was charged of an offence of establishing a reign of terror in the locality which was highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and public order. ;