Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.
1. The complaint disclosed offences with which, it they were not serious, the Village Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal, viz., hurt followed by theft. It was not averred that the hurt and theft were so combined as to constitute the offence of theft robbery. Until the Magistrate had inquired into the case he could not have determined whether the offences were or were not petty, and for the reason that the complainant had elected the tribunal, it might be assumed, until the contrary was proved, the offences were not serious.
2. The conviction for disobedience to the summons cannot be set aside on the ground suggested. It is a more difficult question whether a Village Magistrate has power to issue a summons. The Regulation conferring on the Village Munsif jurisdiction in criminal cases does not give him expressly power to issue summonses. 'We have, however, no doubt that he has authority incidental to his jurisdiction to issue a summons, whether written or oral, to persons within the local area of his jurisdiction whose attendance may be. required in cases which he is empowered to try. We are at the same time unable to hold that he has power to issue summonses to persons who may be outside that area, and on this ground we must hold the conviction invalid It is accordingly quashed, and the fines, if paid, will be returned.
3. Ordered accordingly.