Emperor vs Shahukha Mahibukha

Batty, J.—We do not think that this is a case in which we can interfere. It comes before us in revision, and. in revision it is not usual for us to appreciate evidence. It is suggested that some of the Magistrate''s findings are irrelevant for the purposes of Section 110 and we are unable to say that this is not so. But there is a residuum which falls under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found that the accused was by general repute a habitual offender committing mischief and that he protected thieves. It was not necessary for the purposes of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, that specific instances should be given. If specific instances had been established, the accused might have been charged with the offences specified. The Magistrate was justified by Section 117 in accepting the evidence of general repute that the accused was an habitual offender. We are specially impressed with the finding that the accused is a desperate and dangerous man within the meaning of Section 110(f) which seems to be based on very definite evidence of witnesses who say that they themselves have been intimidated by threats, in some cages carried out by damage by fire to their property in case they did not comply with the demands of the accused. These are findings which suffice in our opinion to support the action taken u/s 110, Criminal Procedure Code. Whether the evidence was open to criticism or not we decline to discuss.

We decline to interfere.