Ghose and Stephen, JJ.
1. These rules relate to certain orders made by the Deputy Magistrate of Natore under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, confirmed, as they have been, by the District Magistrate of Rajshahye in appeal. The petitioner in Rule No. 970 is one Kasi Sundar Roy, and the petitioners in the other Rule No. 10.14 are Nilu Pramanik, Sukh Chand Pramanik, Ruplal Pramanik, Basna Pramanik and Kalu Sardar, who are said to be, the employees or under-raiyats of the said Kasi Sundar Roy. This person appears to be a zemindar. He owns three villages--Patal, Dakhinpore and Basudebpur--and the case which was made by the complainants, who are some of the tenants of Basudebpur, before the Deputy Magistrate was that various acts of oppression were committed by the petitioners in Rule No. 1014 under the orders and connivance of the zemindar Kasi Sundar Roy, the object of such oppression being to compel the raiyats to pay enhanced rents. According to the case for the complainants and as it has been found by the lower Courts, the system which Kasi Sundar Roy followed was this: He would call upon the raiyats to pay enhanced rents: if the raiyats did not agree to pay such enhanced rents, he would employ lathiah to go about in the village threatening the raiyats with violence and unyoking their ploughs, when engaged in cultivating their lands, and then commit arson in the houses of some of the raiyats. It is said that he has been following this system ever since the year 1304 (B.S.) when he commenced such operations through his men upon the village Patal. The Courts below have found that there were two arsons in that village, and the result was that the raiyats agreed to pay enhanced rents. The next operation or rather series of operations were upon Dakhinpore, and these operations are said to have been commenced in the year 1806-7. There were arsons in that village, but by reason of certain applications that were made by some of the villagers for the purpose of binding the zemindar down, and by reason of some notice or other having been issued upon him by the Magistrate, the operations were dropped. The third series of operations related to, as it is said, the village Basudebpore, where, according to the finding of the District Magistrate, the chain of events was as follows: In the year 1308 Chaitra, demands for, enhancement of rent were made on behalf of Kasi Sundar Roy, and various raiyats were opposed when engaged in sowing their lands. In 1309 Bysakh Kasi Sundar sent for Safada Prasad Bhattacharjee, one of the complainants, and threatened him with rack and ruin, unless the raiyats agreed to pay enhanced rents. In 1309, Assar, cases under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, were instituted in regard uncertain lands in the same village, when Kasi Sundar again sent for some of the jotedars; but when the latter arrived, he was not there, and one of his employees, Mohim Bhuyan, held out a threat of arson to Saroda Prasad, Hari and Prangopal. In Pous of the same year, a number of houses in the village Basudebpur were burnt, and this was followed by another conflagration in the same year in the month of Falgun. If the, system which Kasi Sundar Roy is said, and is found, to have been following from the year 1304 dewn to the year 1309 be what we have stated, there can be no doubt that he has been habitually, following such line of conduct in order to bring the refractory raiyats to obedience, so that they might be compelled to pay him enhanced rents. The question then is, whether his conduct, as has been found by the Courts below, is such as would bring him within the scope Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure. There are only two clauses in that section to which reference need be made in this case. Clause (d) says: 'habitually commits mischief, extortion or cheating or counterfeiting coin, currency notes or stamps or attempts so to do,' and the other Clause(e) says 'habitually commits or attempt to commit or abets, the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace.' Kasi's conduct could hardly be brought under Clause (d), because that clause evidently contemplates cases of people, who do certain things themselves, unlike Clause (e) which contemplates, cases, of persons either doing things themselves or abetting others to do the same. But it is not necessary to draw this distinction in the case before us, because we are of opinion that the conduct of Kasi Sunder, having regard to the evidence in the case, more appropriately falls under Clause (e) than under Clause (e) of the section. It seems to us that if the system that he has been following from the year 1304 he as hag been found by the Courts below--and we think there is plenty of evidence to support that finding--then he has been abetting other people to commit offences involving a breach of the peace, in order to compel the raiyats to pay him enhanced rents. It has, however, been argued before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, looking at Section 110 as a whole, it was never meant to apply to a person in the position of the petitioner, who is a zemindar of considerable means. But upon consideration we are unable to agree with that view of the matter; for, a person may be possessed of zemindaries and of considerable means, yet his desire to acquire more may lead him to follow the course of conduct, which is proved in this case to have been followed by the petitioner; and this would bring him within the scope of Clause (e) of Section 110. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel that Kasi Roy is a person over whom the Magistrate (the Sub-divisional Officer of Natore) had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 110. Code of Criminal Procedure. It, however, appears upon the evidence that although he ordinarily resides in the town of Rampur Boalia, he has a residential house in Natore within the jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Officer of Natore; and that he occasionally, if not often, goes there for the purpose of his business as a zemindar in that part of the country; and it appears that all the acts attributed to him are acts which were done by him while residing at his place in Narsatpore. It is those acts of his which occasioned the institution of proceedings against him under Section 110 of the Code. In these circumstances, we think it could not be rightly said that the Sub-divisional Officer of Natore had no jurisdiction to take proceedings against him under Section 110. In the result we think that this Rule (No. 970) must be discharged. 'We order accordingly.
2. As regards the other Rule (No. 1014), we think that, upon the judgments of the Courts below, and upon the evidence, as has been read to us by the learned Counsel and the learned Vakil on both sides, the order, so far as it affects Sukh Chand, Nilu and Ruplal, must be maintained. But as regards Basna, Parsula and Kalu, the facts disclosed or found are not such as would bring their conduct within the scope of Section 110, whether you take Clause (d) or Clause (e) as applicable to the case. We accordingly hold that the order of the Magistrate must he discharged so far as these three individuals are concerned.
3. We ought to mention that Parsula's name does not appear in the petition of motion presented to this Court. But the record being before us, and the whole matter having been brought to our notice, we feel no difficulty in making the order that we have made on behalf of that individual as well.