9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrister in this province lodged a first information charging one of his servants S under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code with the theft of an article of jewellery and a key. On April 17th the trial was begun before the Deputy Magistrate. The respondent in this appeal, Fazlur Rahman, who is a Mukhtar practising in the Court of the Magistrate came into Court and stated that he had been instructed to appear on behalf of S. The Magistrate asked S if he desired to be represented by the respondent and the reply was in the affirmative. At the moment Mr. H, the prosecutor, was in the witness-box and he was subsequently cross-examined by the respondent. The Court-Inspector who was conducting the prosecution requested that two witnesses, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplaint does no more than set forth the allegation of such beating. It is important to observe that the Mukhtar oh the 17th, as he has admitted to us, had not received instructions directly from his client who had been in Jail but from some relative or friend and the announcement by the respondent to the Magistrate on the 17th that he would put questions to Mr. H and the ladies which would damage Mr. H's reputation cannot have been made upon any instructions from his client and it is significant in view of subsequent events. 4. Now on the 24th April the respondent went to the house of a witness Leakat Hussain. This gentleman is a zemindar and an old friend of Mr. H. The respondent asked Mr. Leakat Hussain to tell Mr. H to give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an named Saiyid Shaukat Ali, who is an engineer and contractor and has been employed by Mr. H as a consulting engineer, met the respondent in the street at Muradpur. It was evening time and the witness who was acquainted with the respondent got down from his phaeton and spoke to him. The respondent asked him whether he knew what was happening. The witness replied I know what you are doing by which I understand him to mean I know what you are up to. Then the respondent said that he was defending a poor mehtar (S) and after that he said that if Mr. H had any consideration for his reputation and if ₹ 1,000 or ₹ 1,500 were paid the whole matter (mamla) would drop. Next morning the witness went to Mr. H and told him of his conver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent has had the effrontery to attempt to justify questions of the kind that he asked as reasonable and proper in the circumstances. 8. On the 2nd May Madame L was examined in Court and S was convicted. It may be noted that the Sessions Judge subsequently acquitted S on appeal but still later the High Court set aside the acquittal and re-convicted the accused who was sent to Jail. 9. The respondent has endeavoured, without the slightest success, to attack the credibility of the three witnesses who independently proved his attempt to obtain money from Mr. H. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, found that the threats were in fact made, and that they were made with the object of extorting money. He has, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or which is prohibited by law. The word illegal has been given by the section a very wide meaning and it has the came meaning as unlawful. Now as the learned Judge holds quite properly (and for this purpose I quote his words) He intended no doubt to convey to Mr. H that he would keep him as long as he could in the witness-box and would hector and badger and ask him so many insulting questions as he could until the Court stopped him and again There are indications that Fazlur Rahman meant Mr. H to understand that he would set up some false defence on Sections behalf which would reflect on the private life of Mr. H or some member of his family. 12. The learned Judge has apparently not reflected that such a course of condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o discover what points he did or might have urged I have been able to find three only. The first was a contention that no appeal by the Government against an acquittal could be entertained by this Court unless the offence charged was a cognizable offence. This point is entirely concluded by the wording of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which places no such limit upon the Government right of appeal. 14. Next he endeavoured to attack the credibility of the witnesses who proved the threats uttered by him. This attempt completely failed and was entirely unjustified. Their evidence was very properly accepted by the two lower Courts. 15. Lastly he urged the legal point upon which the case was decided in his favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
