Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jafar HusaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR46All105
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJafar HusaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 106 - security to keep the peace--offence involving a breach of the peace. - - 671. that case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. i am satisfied that the magistrate must have thought it necessary to bind them over......him. in my opinion the finding on that point is clear and cannot be interfered with.3. the next point urged is that the order binding them over under section 106 was improper, inasmuch as there was no express finding that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. reliance is placed on the case of abdul ali chowdhury v. emperor (1916) i.l.r. 48 calc. 671. that case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. in the present case the accused was convicted of an offence of assault. in any case the learned magistrate has also expressed an opinion to the effect.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is an application in revision. The first point taken is that the learned District Magistrate has under an oversight rejected the application filed before him summarily and has not considered the case on the merits. It is conceded that no appeal lay to him.

2. However, I have heard the learned vakil for the applicants and have also examined the grounds on which the judgment of the trial court is sought to be set aside. Two points have been urged. The first is that the prosecution evidence has not been thoroughly discussed. I cannot accept this. The judgment of the trying Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, covers more than a page in type. He has referred to the four witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and after stating what they deposed to, has come to the conclusion that they should be believed. On the finding recorded by him the accused went about canvassing, and on a refusal by the complainant to vote for him struck him with a lathi, and two of his companions, the co-accused, beat him with hands. This case has been proved according to the trying Magistrate against him. In my opinion the finding on that point is clear and cannot be interfered with.

3. The next point urged is that the order binding them over under Section 106 was improper, inasmuch as there was no express finding that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Ali Chowdhury v. Emperor (1916) I.L.R. 48 Calc. 671. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under Section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. In the present case the accused was convicted of an offence of assault. In any case the learned Magistrate has also expressed an opinion to the effect 'that the accused persons appear to be very troublesome.' I am of opinion that there is no legal flaw in the judgment. The case was a very simple one, and the accused were bound over because of the feelings which may be created in an election campaign. I am satisfied that the Magistrate must have thought it necessary to bind them over. The application is without force and I dismiss it.


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