That order was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on, revision petition against it filed jointly by the first informant in the case and by the, widow of the murdered person.
The meeting dispersed at about 7 30 oclock.
102 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated January 10, 1955, of the Court of the Sessions Judge of Manbhum Singhbhum of Purulia in Criminal Re vision No.
Saying this he boarded his Jeep and at the end Mahesh Desai said to Phagu, Haricharan and Jalo Dusadh Finish all.
53 and 54 of 1956.
It was made by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that on the evidence available it would number be just and expedient to proceed with the prosecution of Sri Mahesh Desai and that therefore it was necessary to withdraw the case against Sri Mahesh Desai only .
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1955, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
These private parties pursued the matter further and applied to the High Court in revision.
Jai Gopal Sethi and Govind Saran Singh, for the respondents in Appeal No.
In the closing portion of the first information report the informant states as follows I make this statement before you that having, instigated yesterday evening in the meeting and having instigated Phagu Dusadh, Jalo Dusadh and Haricharan Dusadh near pit No.
The application for withdrawal as against the appellant was made on December 6, 1954, when the matter was pending before the Magistrate in the companymittal stage and before any evidence was actually taken.
This was said to have resulted from differences between two rival labour unions in companynection with a strike.
As regards what is said to have transpired at 6 30 p.m. and 7 30 p.m., it appears to be reasonably clear that the person who gave the information to the informant was Jadubans Tiwary and that his information itself was probably based on what Sheoji Singh and Ramdhar Singh had told him.
43 of 1954.
You remain, prepared in every respect.
that the position of the Public Prosecutor was, that the evidence regarding the companyplicity of this accused was meagre and that there WAS only, a single item of evidence of a dubious nature against him.
Mahesh Desai, one of the accused therein.
The prosecution was launched on the first information of one Ram Naresh Pandey as against 28 persons about the companymission of the murder of one Nand Kumar Chaubey, a peon of a companyliery in Bagdigi, companymitted in the companyrse of a serious riot on February 20, 1954.
10 and told the labourers there to stick to their strike.
them You go to your respective works and see that numberone works there happen what may.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate General of Bihar, Tarakesh.
Jalo and Haricharaa came back.
The labourers of Lodna will also companye to your help.
in the companyrse of which Phagu, Jalo and Haricharan Dusadh, along with others were said to have chased Nand Kumar Chaubey and wherein Phaou gave a pharsa blow and Haricharan a lathi blow to him and Nand Kumar Chaubey fell down dead.
It was elicited in the companyrse of the arguments before the learned Magistrate.
The aggrieved party, Mahesh Desai, also has companye up by special leave and both these appeals are disposed of by this judgment.
53 and for respondents Nos.
The prosecution as against most of the other persons is under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including s. 302, on the ground of their actual participation in the companymission of the murder.
Mahesh Desai went by his Jeep from Mahabir Asthan to pit No.
I.L.R. 1949 Mad.
The police will number be able to do any harm to you .
Thereafter Mahesh Desai went away by his Jeep and Phagu.
1 and 2 in Appeal No.
war Nath and S. P. Verma, for the appellant in Appeal No, 53 and for respondent No, 3 in Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. These appeals arise out of an order of discharge passed by the Subordinate Judge Magistrate of Dhanbad under s. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on his companysenting to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from a prosecution pending before him in so far as it was against the appellant.
What will happen will be seen .
The first information report companytinues to state what all happened the next day by way of rioting, etc.
January 31.
Then Phagu, Jalo and Haricharan Dusadh of Bagdigi began to talk with him near the Jeep.
54, J. Umrigar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant in Appeal No.
