1. In this case it appears that on a complaint made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(c) of the Eastern: Bengal and Assam Disorderly Houses Act, 1907, proceedings Or prosecutions under Section 3 were taken against the owners and occupiers of houses Nos. 7, 25 and 26 of a certain lane in the city of Dacca. On the enquiry held in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, the enquiring Magistrate found that as a matter of fact the houses in question were used as brothels, as disorderly houses and for the purpose of habitual prostitution to the annoyance of the inhabitants of the vicinity, that is to say, in contravention of the provisions of Section 2(6) of the same Act. He thereupon directed that such, use of the houses in question should be discontinued within fifteen days from the date of the order. The persons affected by the order moved the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca and obtained from him an order by which he practically stayed the order of the enquiring Magistrate for a period of six months and also modified it in certain other particulars.
2. The question involved in this Rule is whether the District Magistrate had jurisdiction or was competent to modify the order of the enquiring Magistrate in the manner in which he has done, on in any mariner whatsoever. Neither in the Act itself, nor in the Criminal Procedure Code, nor in any law that has been brought to our notice do we find any provision which justifies the District Magistrate in interfering with an order passed by a Criminal Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act, to which we have made reference. It is also clear that if orders made under Section 3 are modified by other Magistrates, difficulties would arise in applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the Magistrate's action was wholly without jurisdiction, and in so far as it is an order modifying the Trying Magistrate's order and not an order directed to Police Officers, we direct that it be set aside.
3. I have only one word to add with reference to the case of Rajani Khemtawali v. Emperor 5 Ind. Cas. 323 : 14 C.W.N. 404 : 11 C.L.J. 297 : 37 C. 287 : 11 Cr. L.J. 112 which was cited in the course of argument. Whatever opinion may have been expressed in the judgment delivered in that case, I do not understand that any point was actually decided by the learned Judges inconsistent with our decision in the present case.