Skip to content


Mahabir and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All95; 44Ind.Cas.967
AppellantMahabir and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....107 - conviction for rioting--district magistrate, power of, in appeal, to order security for good behaviour--surety, whether particular person can he ordered to be--jurisdiction. - - 1. the applicants were charged under section 147 of riot and convicted by a magistrate of the second class on the 31st of october 1917. the accused appealed and on the matter coming up before the district magistrate of basti, on the 5th of november 1917, he confirmed the order of the court below but in addition to that he ordered the accused to furnish security to be of good behaviour and that one of the sureties must be a certain lady. apparently the district magistrate thought that the riot had been either instigated by or had been made on behalf of the lady and that, therefore, she would be a very..........of the court below but in addition to that he ordered the accused to furnish security to be of good behaviour and that one of the sureties must be a certain lady. apparently the district magistrate thought that the riot had been either instigated by or had been made on behalf of the lady and that, therefore, she would be a very good person to give security. the order directed that the security should be for good behaviour. this was clearly a mistake, because the district magistrate would have no jurisdiction in appeal from conviction to order an accused person to give security to be of good behaviour, although he might no doubt order security to keep the peace.' it is admitted on both sides that this error must be corrected.2. a further objection is taken to the order that the.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J.

1. The applicants were charged under Section 147 of riot and convicted by a Magistrate of the Second Class on the 31st of October 1917. The accused appealed and on the matter coming up before the District Magistrate of Basti, on the 5th of November 1917, he confirmed the order of the Court below but in addition to that he ordered the accused to furnish security to be of good behaviour and that one of the sureties must be a certain lady. Apparently the District Magistrate thought that the riot had been either instigated by or had been made on behalf of the lady and that, therefore, she would be a very good person to give security. The order directed that the security should be for good behaviour. This was clearly a mistake, because the District Magistrate would have no jurisdiction in appeal from conviction to order an accused person to give security to be of good behaviour, although he might no doubt order security to keep the peace.' It is admitted on both sides that this error must be corrected.

2. A further objection is taken to the order that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct that one of the sureties must be a particular individual. The Assistant Government Advocate admits that he cannot support this order, and I am also of opinion that the order directing that a particular person must be one of the sureties is not a valid order. I accordingly vary the order of the learned District Magistrate in this way. The applicants will themselves execute bonds in the sums of Rs. 200 with two sureties in like sums to keep the peace for one year in each man's case, from the date of the expiration of one month's rigorous imprisonment imposed for the offence. In default I direct simple imprisonment for the remainder of the year.


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