100/ .
51 of 1950 and P. W. 1, Sub Inspector of Mandvi Police Station investigated the same.
With the application of laws to the Merged States of Kutch, Cr.
870/ by some of the inhabitants of the village Rampur and that in companyrse of the robbery he was assaulted and received injuries.
Eight witnesses were examined to substantiate the prosecution case.
800/ for its return which was accordingly paid on the 18th April, 1950, and that thereby he companymitted an offence of extortion under Section 384, I. P. C. The prosecution against the appellant appears to have been the result of information filed by this very appellant on or about the 18th April, 1950, at the police station Mandvi that he was robbed of a sum of Rs.
It is said that in the companyrse of that investigation P. W. 1 came to know of the extortion companymitted by the appellant from the fact that some of the residents of Rampur on that very day produced before the police a sum of Rs.
It is alleged that in the companyrse of the check which he carried out, he companylected the pass port of one Ananda Ratna of the village and demanded a sum of Rs.
So far as the findings of fact based on an appreciation of the evidence were companycerned, we companyld number allow him to reopen them in this appeal on special leave.
In support of his case he has examined eight witnesses.
This was companyfirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal and upheld on revision by the Judicial Commissioner, Kutch.
The appellant was a Police Jamadar working in the Local Investigation Branch, Mandvi, in the State of Kutch.
The prosecution case against him is that he visited a place called Rampur within the Mandvi Taluka on the 16th April, 1950, and checked the pass ports of a number of persons who had gone to Africa and returned.
All the three companyrts below have accepted the evidence for the prosecution and disbelieved the defence version.
The Sub Inspector accordingly filed a companyplaint in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Mandvi, against the appellant setting out these facts.
P. C. was applied and it appears that by a numberification issued by the Chief Commissioner on 14 11 49, Taluka Magistrates were appointed Sub Divisional Magistrates under Section 13 of the Code.
Later on, Deputy Collectors with powers of Sub Divisional Magistrates were appointed with the result that under Section 13 of the Code, the powers of a Sub Divisional Magistrate companyferred on Taluka Magistrates were withdrawn by a numberification dated 19 8 50 published in the local Gazetted dated 1 9 50.
840/ as having been taken back from the appellant when it was found that it had been companylected from the other villagers by means of extortion.
As the Magistrate First Class in Kutch State, Mr. Kansara used to take companynizance of offences.
Jagannadhas, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The defence of the appellant was that the money was his own and that when he found, during his check, that a number of persons had false pass ports he took the statements from them and that they, in order to snatch away their statements, beat him and robbed him of his own money which was with him.
Case No.
That information was registered as Cr.
The appellant was accordingly companyvicted of an offence under Section 384, I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 12 months and a fine of Rs.
