Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bhagubhai Dwarkadas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 269 of 1914
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR684
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBhagubhai Dwarkadas
Excerpt:
.....aiding or abetting directly or indirectly, in any way the removal of any dogs, either in carts, or otherwise, or from preventing or trying to prevent or obstruct directly or iudirectly, the poisoning of such dogs in any way and from taking possession of or confining such dogs.' the order applied to' surat city and all places within five miles of surat city.' on an application uuder revisional jurisdiction :-;that the order was made without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order was directed neither to a particular individual nor to the public generally ' when frequenting or visiting a particular place. - .....taking possession of or confining such dogs.' it is mentioned in the order that ' it applies to surat city and all places within five miles of surat city.' under section 144, however, the district magistrate has power only to direct an order to a particular individual or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place. it is quite clear that this order complies with neither of these requirements. it is, therefore, made without jurisdiction. it is needless to consider the other objections urged on behalf of the applicants. on this ground alone i set aside the order.heaton, j.2. i agree. i hold that the district magistrate has no power whatever to issue a prohibitory order to the public unless that power is specifically conferred by some provision of the law. he.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. The District Magistrate of Surat purporting to act under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has made an order directing 'all persons to abstain from removing or causing to be removed or promoting, aiding, or abetting, directly or indirectly, in any way the removal of any dogs, either in carts, or otherwise, and from preventing or trying to prevent or obstruct directly or indirectly, the poisoning of such dogs in any way and from taking possession of or confining such dogs.' It is mentioned in the order that ' it applies to Surat City and all places within five miles of Surat City.' Under Section 144, however, the District Magistrate has power only to direct an order to a particular individual or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place. It is quite clear that this order complies with neither of these requirements. It is, therefore, made without jurisdiction. It is needless to consider the other objections urged on behalf of the applicants. On this ground alone I set aside the order.

Heaton, J.

2. I agree. I hold that the District Magistrate has no power whatever to issue a prohibitory order to the public unless that power is specifically conferred by some provision of the law. He claims or appears to claim that the power to issue this particular prohibitory order to the public of Surat is conferred by Section 144. But to me it is quite plain that it is not. Clause (3) of that section cannot conceivably cover the case and the power to direct any person to abstain from a particular thing is not a power to direct the public generally from abstaining.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //