Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Durga Halwai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.442
AppellantEmperor
RespondentDurga Halwai and ors.
Cases ReferredKetahoi v. Queen
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 107 - 110-good behaviour, security for-'residing' importation of the term-section 110, application of-findings--fit case. - .....jurisdiction to take proceedings against them under section 110, because they were not within the local limits of his jurisdiction. there appears to be no force in this contention. mohendra karmakar may be a native of midnapur, but it is proved that he was residing in calcutta down to agrahan last. he attempted (but without success) to show that he was carrying on a shop for the manufacture and sale of iron chests in a remote village in the midnapur district. about december 1914 he disappeared. he was arrested in january in the midnapur district in connection with a burglary committed at serampore in december 1914. he was brought under arrest from serampore to be placed before the magistrate in this case. jai gopal was arrested in calcutta at the shop of kedar bania. for him it was said.....
Judgment:

1. This is a reference under Section 123, Criminal Procedure Code, in the matter of six persons, Durga Halwai, Mohendra Karmaltar, Jai Gopal Das, Ganga Bissen, Dwarka Sukul and Sham La], who have been ordered to furnish security for good behaviour, the first four for three years, and the last two for two years, respectively, under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and who have all failed to furnish such security. The case made against them is that they are all by habit house-breakers and thieves, and form part of a gang who have been operating in Calcutta during the past three years or thereabouts. On behalf of Mohendra Karmakar arid Jai Gopal Das it was argued that the Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take proceedings against them under Section 110, because they were not within the local limits of his jurisdiction. There appears to be no force in this contention. Mohendra Karmakar may be a native of Midnapur, but it is proved that he was residing in Calcutta down to Agrahan last. He attempted (but without success) to show that he was carrying on a shop for the manufacture and sale of iron chests in a remote village in the Midnapur District. About December 1914 he disappeared. He was arrested in January in the Midnapur District in connection with a burglary committed at Serampore in December 1914. He was brought under arrest from Serampore to be placed before the Magistrate in this case. Jai Gopal was arrested in Calcutta at the shop of Kedar Bania. For him it was said that he lived at Sinthi near Dum Dum. It appears that he used to go there to the house of his mother-in-law and that he used a bicycle to come and go. It was argued that within the local limits of his jurisdiction' must be read as residing within the local limits etc.,' and the case of Ketahoi v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 993 : 5 C.W.N. 29 was cited. The remarks in that judgment must be read in connection with the particular facts of that case, which were entirely different from those before us. In none of the Sections 107 to 110 does the word 'residing' occur, and to read it into those sections would involve a complete alteration of their scope and effect.

2. It was undoubtedly within the local limits of the Presidency Magistrate's jurisdiction that the habits of all these six persons, which are now complained of, were practised, and their evil reputation, if any, acquired. Of the merits of the case very little need be said. There is abundant and cogent evidence that all these six persons are habitual housebreakers and thieves. They have all been in jail, some of them once and once again, for similar offences. They all last emerged from jail at various dates from October 1911 to July 1912. Since then they have been associating in Calcutta with Parmesaari and Sitanath, other offenders of the same class, and have formed a regular gang for the commission of house-breaking and theft. There is evidence of no less than 14 burglaries from 1912 down to 1914 in respect of which suspicion has fallen upon them, Their reputation as thieves is firmly established by the evidence of a number of witnesses including those called for the defence. It would be difficult to imagine a case in which the application of Section 110 was more necessary or proper. We accordingly confirm the order of the Presidency Magistrate and direct that Durga Halwai, Mohendra Karmakar, Jai Gopal Das and Ganga Bissen be detained in prison for three years each, and Dwarka Sukul and Sham Lal for two years each, or until within such periods they respectively give the security to the Magistrate as ordered by him. The imprisonment will in each case be rigorous.


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