Skip to content


Shama Charan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Katu Mundal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR24Cal344
AppellantShama Charan Chakravarti and ors.
RespondentKatu Mundal and anr.
Excerpt:
recognizance to keep the peace - criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 107--jurisdiction of magistrate. - .....and have thus, in the opinion of the deputy magistrate, committed various acts within the local limits of his jurisdiction, which show that they are likely to commit a breach of the peace therein; and he has accordingly bound them down to keep the peace for the period of one year.2. as regards shama charan chuckerbutty, mr. jackson his contended that, inasmuch as he habitually resides in the district of maldah, the magistrate of dinajpur had no jurisdiction to institute proceedings and issue process against him under section 107 of the criminal procedure code; and in support of this contention he has relied on the following cases: in the matter of the petition of jai prakash lall i.l.r. 6 all., 20, in the matter of the petition of rajendra chandra roy chowdhry i.l.r. 11 cal. 73.....
Judgment:

Ghose and Gordon, JJ.

1. This is a rule upon the Magistrate of Dinajpur to show cause why an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of that district under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside. The learned Judges in granting the rule observed as follows: 'The main ground for the application is that one of the parties bound down to keep the peace is not a resident of the district, and as it may possibly be necessary to look at the evidence on the record, we do not separate the case of the two applicants, but let the rule run in favour of both.' One of the two petitioners, Shama Charan Chuckerbutty, is the suddernaib, and the other, Tarak Nath Ghose, is the tehsildar of one Ghanesham Babu, proprietor of certain villages situated within the district of Dinajpur. Shama Charan Chuckerbutty resides in the district of Maldah, while Tarak Nath Ghose lives in the district of Dinajpur. The Deputy Magistrate has found on the evidence that there is a dispute existing between these two persons on the one side and the tenants of the villages in question on the other, which is likely to cause a breach of the peace. These villages have been recently measured, and an attempt is being made by the proprietor, through his agents, the present petitioners, to enhance the rents of the tenants; and with the object of compelling the tenants to submit to their landlord's demand the petitioners assembled a large number of paiks and burkendazes, and attempted to overawe them by threats, show of force and other oppressive measures, and have thus, in the opinion of the Deputy Magistrate, committed various acts within the local limits of his jurisdiction, which show that they are likely to commit a breach of the peace therein; and he has accordingly bound them down to keep the peace for the period of one year.

2. As regards Shama Charan Chuckerbutty, Mr. Jackson his contended that, inasmuch as he habitually resides in the district of Maldah, the Magistrate of Dinajpur had no jurisdiction to institute proceedings and issue process against him under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and in support of this contention he has relied on the following cases: In the matter of the petition of Jai Prakash Lall I.L.R. 6 All., 20, In the matter of the petition of Rajendra Chandra Roy Chowdhry I.L.R. 11 Cal. 73 7, and In the matter of the petition of Dinonath Mullick I.L.R. 12 Cal. 133. We observe that the facts of these cases are not similar to those of the present case. In those cases it appears that the petitioners had committed no acts likely to cause a breach of the peace within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who instituted proceedings against them under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code; whereas in the present case it is found that petitioners have committed various acts of this character within such limits.

3. It appears upon the record that Shama Charan, being deputed by the zemindar, came over to the Dinajpur district, committed various acts calculated to cause a breach of the peace, and was residing (though temporarily) within the local limits of that district at the time when the Magistrate received information of the probability of a breach of the peace, and instituted proceedings under Section 107 of the Code Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate finds that 'he was hovering about the district, or at least he did so in the months of Falgoon, Chyt, Bysack, Joisto and Assar.' This would cover the whole of the period antecedent and subsequent to the institution of the proceedings. He means, as we understand, that Shama Charan was hovering in various parts of the district during these months. That being so, we are of opinion that the Magistrate had jurisdiction over him.

4. Section 107 says: 'Whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction, or that there is within such limits a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or do any wrongful acts as aforesaid in any place beyond such limits, the Magistrate may in manner hereinafter provided require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix.'

5. It appears to us that if, at the time when the Magistrate receives information and institutes proceedings, the accused person is residing within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he would have authority to proceed against him under Section 107, though that person may be habitually or permanently residing in another jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would lead to various difficulties and inconveniences. No doubt, there are observations in the cases cited before us which may at first sight seem to be opposed to this view; but having regard to the facts of those cases we do not think that those observations militate against the opinion which we have formed in this case.

6. As regards Tarak Nath Ghose no such question of jurisdiction arises.

7. Upon these grounds we are of opinion that this rule should be discharged.


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