Skip to content


Ramasami Chetty Vs. Muthuvelu Mudali and Two ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR65Mad843
AppellantRamasami Chetty
RespondentMuthuvelu Mudali and Two ors.
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Oolaganadan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
towns nuisances act (madras act iii of 1889), section 3(12) - criminal rules of practice, rule 16(2)--'conservancy clauses of police acts'--bench, of magistrates--jurisdiction--consent. - .....5, 6 and 7 named in rule 1, clause 5(e) of the rules framed by the government for the guidance of bench magistrates under section 16 of the code of criminal procedure. the answer to this argument is that section 3 is not mentioned in clause 5(e), because it falls under the earlier clause (2) as an offence against the conservancy clauses of a police act punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. though section 8 is in the towns nuisances act, section 11 of that act directs that the section is to be read with and forms part of act xxiv of 1859, the police act. it was ruled in queen-empress v. oolaganadan i.l.r. (1890) mad. 142, that all the clauses in section 48 of the police act fell within the term 'conservancy clause.' section 3(12) of the towns.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. This is a revision petition by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrate of South Arcot. The ground taken is that the Bench had no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 3, Clause 12 of Act III of 1889, Curiously enough, the objection is taken by the complainant himself who invoked the jurisdiction of the Bench. This does not, however, prevent him from doing so in Revision; for a Court cannot get jurisdiction, if it had not any in law, mere because complainant invoked its jurisdiction.

2. On the question of jurisdiction it is argued that tin Bench had jurisdiction only to try offences under Sections 5, 6 and 7 named in Rule 1, Clause 5(e) of the rules framed by the Government for the guidance of Bench Magistrates under Section 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer to this argument is that Section 3 is not mentioned in Clause 5(e), because it falls under the earlier Clause (2) as an offence against the conservancy clauses of a Police Act punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. Though Section 8 is in the Towns Nuisances Act, Section 11 of that Act directs that the Section is to be read with and forms part of Act XXIV of 1859, the Police Act. It was ruled in Queen-Empress v. Oolaganadan I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 142, that all the clauses in Section 48 of the Police Act fell within the term 'conservancy clause.' Section 3(12) of the Towns Nuisances Act is practically the same as Clause 6 and part of Clause 7 of Section 48 of the Police Act. That case is therefore an authority for holding that an offence under Section 3(12) of the Act III of 1889 falls within Clause 2, Rule 1 of the rules for the guidance of Bench Magistrates and the Magistrates had jurisdiction to dispose of the present case.

3. The petition fails and is dismissed.


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