NRIPENDRA BHUSAN RAY Vs. GOBINDA BANDHU MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts connected with this Rule are as follows : The petitioner, Nripendra Bhusan Ray, is a nonresident zemindar of Narail in the district of Jeasore. It is stated that he resides at Madhupur in the Sonthal Parganas and that all the affairs of his zamindari, which lies in several districts, are managed by one Bepin Behari Dutt, who is his manager and who resides at his sudder cutohery in Narail. There is a hat at a place called Simakhali, 17 or 18 miles distant from Narail, which is owned by the petitioner and others. This hat is let out to various persons under leases for a term. In 1327 B.S. the hat in question was leased out to one Ibrahim Sikdar for a period of three years at an annual rental of Rs. 575 and during the pendency of this lease a rival hat was started in or about January, 1922, at a place called Kholabari, which is within a mile of Simakhali. On the 17 September, 1922, a riot occurred at Kholabari. Certain persons, namely, Forman, Izatulla, Wares Sikdar, Basiruddin and Khodai Mulla were convicted of rioting at Kholabari by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jessore on the 8 February, 1923. Thereafter a case was started under Secs.150 and 157, Indian Penal Code, against one Hemant Kumar Banerjee, who was the petitioners former local agent at Narail, and some other persons on the ground that they collected and engaged various persons to commit the aforesaid riot at Kholabari. It has been stated before us that the said case ended in an acquittal of the accused therein. On the 12 March, 1923, an application was made before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, for rawing up proceedings against tha, petitioner under Section 155, Indian Penal Code, and against the said Bepin Behari Dutt under Secs.150 and 156, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that he could not entertain the application. Thereafter the Inspector of Police of the Magura Sub-Division filed a formal complaint before the District Magistrate of Jessore, charging the petitioner and the said Bepin Behari Dutt with having committed offences punishable under Secs.155 and 156, Indian Penal Code, respectively. In his complaint before the District Magistrate the Inspector of Police stated that the ijaradar of the Simakhali hat began to oppress the traders and dealers at Simakhali hat by realising enhanced rents and excessive tolas and by exercising other acts of high-handedness over them. It was further stated by the Inspector of Police that on account of the oppressions of the ijaradar of Simakhali hat, a rival hat had been started at Kholabari and that both the hats began to sit on the same days, viz., on Sundays and Wednesdays, and that the result was that the old hat at Simakhali lost its importance and the new hat at Kholabari flourished. Ha further stated that owing to the rivalry of the two hats breaches of the peace were apprehended and proceedings under Secs.107 and 144, Criminal Procedure Code, were instituted from time to time in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Magura. He then referred to the riot which took place on the 17 of September, 1922, and to the conviction of some of the rioters by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jessore in February 1923. He went on to refer to the case against the local agent, Hemant Kumar Banerjee, and stated that in the course of the investigation of the case against Hemant Kumar Banerjee, 16 letters were produced by Bepin Behari Dutt, the manager of the petitioner, before one Ajit Mohan Chowdhury, Inspector of Police. It was alleged that from the letters and from other evidence it would appear that the said Bepin Behari Dutt was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 156, Indian Penal Code, and that the petitioner was liable for an offence under Section 155, Indian Penal Code. The petition of the Inspector of Police contained also the following paragraphs : "That the said riot at Kholabari hat on the 17 September, 1922, was committed for the benefit of the above named Babu Nripendra Bhusan Ray, zemindar, who was interested in the subject-matter of the dispute which gave rise to the riot and the accused Babu Bepin Behari Dutt, manager, had reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed and did not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or unlawful assembly from taking place, and that the said Babu Bepin Behari Dutt has thereby committed an offence under Section 156, Indian Penal Code. That it will further appear from the letters abovementioned that Babu Bepin Behari Dutt connived at the engagement of persons to become a member of the unlawful assembly.

(2.) That the said riot at Kholabari on the 17 September, 1922, was committed for the benefit of Babu Nripendra Bhusan Ray, owner of the Simakhali hat, and the said Babu Nripendra Bhusan Ray was interested in the subject-matter of the dispute which gave rise to the riot, and his agent or manager having reason to believe that the riot was likely to be committed, or that the unlawful assembly, by which such riot was committed, was likely to be held, did not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or unlawful assembly and that the said Babu Nripendra Bhusan Ray has thereby committed an offence under Section 155, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The Inspector of Police, Govinda Bandhu Majumdar, was examined on oath by the learned District Magistrate. The Inspector of Police stated, among others, the following matters: Q. - Did accused No. 2 know or have reason to believe that an unlawful assembly was being held or would be held at Simakhali? A. - So far as I enquired, I could not find that there was such knowledge on the part of accused No. 2. Q. - Where was accused No. 2 at the time of the unlawful assembly? A. - At Narail, about 15 or 16 miles, I think, from Simakhali. Q. - Who was the agent of the Zemindar on the spot at the time of the unlawful assembly at Simakhali? A. - At the time of the unlawful assembly at Simakhali which led to the riot at Kholabari, the Zemindar's local agent, i.e., Hemant Kumar Banerjee, was not there, but his dependant, Surendra Nath Bhattacharjee, was there. Q. - At the time of unlawful assembly leading to the riot, where was Babu Hemant Kumar Banerjee, i.e., on the 17 September, 1922? A. - He was at Bunaganti Cutchery, 12 miles from Simakhali, on 17 September, 1922, afternoon. Q. - Did the unlawful assembly take-place in the afternoon? A - Yes. Q. - Then so far as you know, there was no agent or manager of the Zemindar- present at Simakhali just before or at the time when the unlawful assembly assembled on 17 September, 1922? A. - No, none. Q. - Do you complain of any other-unlawful assembly besides that of 17th September, 1922? A. - No, no other. Q. - Did you find from any reliable-evidence that accused No. 2 had reason to believe that an unlawful assembly such as was actually held at Simakhali on 17th; September, 1922, would be so held? A. - In the course of investigation of case No. 3 of October, 1922, I seized soma letters which accused No. 2 produced to me; in one of them I find that the accused No. 2 enjoined or entreated his agent, Hemant Banerjee, to cause demolition of the new hat. Q. - What was the date of that particular -letter? A. - (Refers to papers) 23 Sravan,. 1329 (8 August, 1922). Q. - What is the language of the letter? A. - Shattwar had hata jahate dhangsa hoy tahar byebasta kariba. Q. - How do you know that the accused-wrote that letter? A. - From signature. Q. - To whom is the letter addressed? A. - To Superintendent, Bakra Mokam, Simakhali. Q. - Is it quite clear that that letter refers to the Kholabari hat? A - Yes.