Skip to content


Sarat Chunder Roy Vs. BepIn Chandra Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR29Cal389
AppellantSarat Chunder Roy
RespondentBepIn Chandra Roy
Excerpt:
security for keeping the peace - magistrate appointed in the district--limits of jurisdiction--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 12 and 107. - .....amended by the act of 1898, however, distinctly provides for such a case. section 12 empowers the local government to appoint certain persons to be magistrates of certain classes in a district, and it enables such government to define the local areas within which such magistrates may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be invested. sub-section (2) declares that, except as otherwise provided by such definition, that is, without an order restricting the power of any magistrate appointed by the local government, 'the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district.' consequently, unless the powers of this magistrate had been restricted to a certain local area, he had jurisdiction over the entire district. we have examined the calcutta gazette.....
Judgment:

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.

1. The objection taken in this case on which a Rule was granted is represented to us as being this. The Subdivisional Magistrate instituted proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of binding the petitioner down to keep the peace. Objection was taken to his trying the case, and consequently it was, under the orders of the District Magistrate, transferred to a Magistrate not in the subdivision, but holding his Court at the head-quarters of the district. When the case was taken up before this Magistrate objection was raised that the original order instituting the proceedings was bad, inasmuch as it did not give sufficient notice to the parties of the substance of the information upon which the Subdivisional Magistrate had acted. The Magistrate, out of consideration for the parties, amended the proceedings by drawing up a fresh proceeding, citing the substance of the information in full, but still relying upon the same information upon which the Subdivisional Magistrate had proceeded. It has been objected that this was a fresh proceeding which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make, inasmuch as the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Magistrate, and, we understand, that it was on this ground that the Rule was granted.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the Act of 1898, however, distinctly provides for such a case. Section 12 empowers the Local Government to appoint certain persons to be Magistrates of certain classes in a district, and it enables such Government to define the local areas within which such Magistrates may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be invested. Sub-section (2) declares that, except as otherwise provided by such definition, that is, without an order restricting the power of any Magistrate appointed by the Local Government, 'the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district.' Consequently, unless the powers of this Magistrate had been restricted to a certain local area, he had jurisdiction over the entire district. We have examined the Calcutta Gazette in which the appointment of this Magistrate was notified, and we can find no such restriction. Under such circumstances the Deputy Magistrate had jurisdiction over the entire district and had jurisdiction to institute this proceeding, if it were necessary to consider this as a fresh proceeding, which is doubtful. At all events, the objection fails and the Rule must be discharged.


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