Skip to content


Musammat Imaman Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All176; 55Ind.Cas.850
AppellantMusammat Imaman
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), section 247, complaint under - duty of court--evidence, nature of. - - the magistrate thus received information within the meaning of section 247. clause (a) of that section was not applicable to the case because the brothel complained of was not alleged to be in the vicinity of a place of worship or an educational institution or a boarding house, hostel or mess used or occupied by students. it was apparently an application which fell under clause (b) of the sectior, namely, that the house complained of was being used as a brothel or for the purpose of habitual prostitution to the annoyance of respectable inhabitants in the vicinity......it was apparently an application which fell under clause (b) of the sectior, namely, that the house complained of was being used as a brothel or for the purpose of habitual prostitution to the annoyance of respectable inhabitants in the vicinity. under the proviso to the section it was necessary that the complaint should have been made by three or more persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the house to which the complaint refers. in the present case the magistrate, who made an inquiry into the matter and passed orders, doss not appear to have recorded any evidence whatever. the learned counsel on both sides were unable to find on the record any evidence, which the magistrate had taken and upon which he could base his finding. it was necessary for him to take evidence and to.....
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order purporting to have been made under Section 247 of the Municipalities Act No. II of 1916. It appears that an application was presented to the Municipal Board by a number of persona complaining of the existence of houses occupied by prostitutes in a particular Mohalla in the city of Cawnpore. This application was forwarded to the Joint Magistrate, (who is a Magistrate of the first class) for necessary action. The Magistrate thus received information within the meaning of Section 247. Clause (a) of that section was not applicable to the case because the brothel complained of was not alleged to be in the vicinity of a place of worship or an educational institution or a boarding house, hostel or mess used or occupied by students. It was apparently an application which fell under Clause (b) of the sectior, namely, that the house complained of was being used as a brothel or for the purpose of habitual prostitution to the annoyance of respectable inhabitants in the vicinity. Under the proviso to the section it was necessary that the complaint should have been made by three or more persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the house to which the complaint refers. In the present case the Magistrate, who made an inquiry into the matter and passed orders, doss not appear to have recorded any evidence whatever. The learned Counsel on both sides were unable to find on the record any evidence, which the Magistrate had taken and upon which he could base his finding. It was necessary for him to take evidence and to satisfy himself first that the complainants were persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the house to which the complaint referred and, second, that the house was used for the purposes mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 247 to the annoyance of respectable inhabitants in the vicinity Unless an enquiry was made upon the aforesaid points, the Magistrate could not legally pass any order under the section. I accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate and send back the case to him with instructions to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 247 as pointed out alone and then to pass such orders as he might think fit.


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