Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Dharam Raj and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All345
AppellantEmperor
RespondentDharam Raj and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 106 - security for keeping the peace-criminal trespass with intent to commit a breach of the peace. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which..........recorded under section 452 of the indian penal code. the offence in question is one of aggra vated house-trespass; the particular aggravation need not be considered. the question is, what] was the nature of the house trespass of -which these applicants were found guilty. the finding is that they came with lathis prepared to assault rai singh, ziladar of the court of wards; that dharam raj aimed a blow at the ziladar which was caught by the thatch of the house; that the ziladar then took refuge inside his house and closed the door, hut the four applicants pushed the door open and assaulted the ziladar inside ms own house. it follows that the criminal trespass of which these men have been convicted is the entry of a house with intent to commit the offence of causing hurt. the conviction.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. The question in this case is as to the propriety of an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, binding over Dharam Raj and three other persons to keep the peace, the said order following a conviction recorded under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence in question is one of aggra vated house-trespass; the particular aggravation need not be considered. The question is, what] was the nature of the house trespass of -which these applicants were found guilty. The finding is that they came with lathis prepared to assault Rai Singh, ziladar of the Court of Wards; that Dharam Raj aimed a blow at the ziladar which was caught by the thatch of the house; that the ziladar then took refuge inside his house and closed the door, hut the four applicants pushed the door open and assaulted the ziladar inside Ms own house. It follows that the criminal trespass of which these men have been convicted is the entry of a house with intent to commit the offence of causing hurt. The conviction is, therefore, one of an offence, one necessary ingredient of which is a breach of the peace, I have been referred to a good deal of case-law on the subject, but the case moat directly in point is an old one, that of the Queen v. Jhapoo (1873) 20 W.R. Cr.R. 87. I have no doubt that upon a conviction of criminal trespass, where the intention of the trespass is to commit a breach of the peace, an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may lawfully be passed in the discretion of the Magistrate. This point is made all the clearer by a consideration of the case of Empress v. Kundan Singh Weekly Notes 1885, p. 303, in which an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was quashed on the ground that the criminal trespass of which the accused person had in that case been convicted was trespass on an empty house. Id is unnecessary, therefore, for me to consider the somewhat larger question raised by the decision of this Court in Empress v. Manik Rai (1911) 33 All. 771, in which an interpretation was put on the words ' involving a breach of the peace ' in the section in question considerably wider than any which is necessary for the disposal of the present application.

2. One other point has been taken on behalf of the applicants. It is said that they acted in the heat of passion, under provocation afforded by an insult addressed to Dharam Raj and Ram Das by the complainant, Rai Singh, and that it is quite unlikely that they should ever feel disposed to repeat their offence. As I have found the order in question to be within the jurisdiction and discretion of the trying Magistrate, I should in any case be reluctant to interfere upon a mere question of discretion. In the present case, however, I do not think it can be said that an order which affords the ziladar protection in his future dealings with these men is on the face of it such an improper exercise of discretion as to invite interference in revision by this Court. I dismiss this application.


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