Ramdhani Mahto and others vs Emperor

Wort, J.—The Sessions Judge in this case has expressed himself in a somewhat unfortunate manner; but that in no way affects the substance of his judgment. He says in one place dealing with the evidence for the prosecution and the lesser number of witnesses for the defence that the opinion of this small minority (referring to the defence witnesses) does not make the opinion of the majority unreliable. For the moment the Sessions Judge seems to have thought that the question was merely one of counting of heads; but from a perusal of the judgment generally, I come to the conclusion that the Judge has in fact accepted the prosecution story, more particularly because in relation to another matter he expresses himself in these words: "I accept this evidence." The evidence referred to was the evidence of the prosecution that the accused were moving about in company of certain bad characters. It is true that that point related to the question of a joint trial but it justified the finding of the Sessions Judge on the general question. But there is a more serious matter and that is that subsequent to the hearing by the Sessions Judge the Magistrate who heard the case u/s 110 in the first instance, rejected the sureties tendered by the accused merely on the report of the police. This was illegal. S. 122, Criminal P.C., is clear. He cannot reject the sureties unless he enquires himself or orders an enquiry by a Magistrate. Therefore the order rejecting the sureties by the Magistrate will be set aside and a proper enquiry, will be held. Subject to that, the rule will be discharged. Pending the enquiry the sureties which have been tendered will be accepted.