1. In this case a Rule has been issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the order under Section 118, Criminal P. C, directing the five petitioners to execute a bond of Rs. 300 each with two sureties each in like amount to keep the peace for one year and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for that period should not be set aside. The principal ground on which this order has been attacked is that there being no evidence to show that the accused persons were within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction at the time the proceedings were initiated, the orders are liable to be set aside. Under Section 107(2) it is laid down that proceedings should not be taken under that section unless either the person informed against or the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. In this case it is clear that the petitioners were living outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction and it has not been proved that they were within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at the time the proceedings were initiated. As regards this point the learned Additional Sessions Judge holds that what is necessary is mere temporary presence at the time of the occurrence within the limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and that has been proved in this case in the case of each of the petitioners. Under the clear wording of the section however proceedings cannot be taken against the accused unless they are within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. So that it is clear that when proceedings are initiated it must be shown that the accused petitioners were within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. It would be quite sufficient if they were temporarily present within the jurisdiction at the time the proceedings were taken. But Sub-section (2) of Section 107 is obviously intended to provide for cases like the present where the accused although living outside the jurisdiction is alleged to have come temporarily within the jurisdiction in order to commit offences. It is clear that proceedings ought to have been taken by the District Magistrate and not by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. I am of opinion that in the circumstances the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction. It is not necessary therefore to go into other points, but there is something to be said for the petitioners on the other grounds also.
2. On the finding of the lower appellate Court it appears that there is evidence against Hriday as regards one overt act only, against Jatindra regarding two overt acts, against Birendra regarding one, against Manindra regarding one and against Bhojali regarding three; and these were merely threatening to assault and in one case chasing the opposite party Satyendra Roy. Against it, it is urged that there was no proper or adequate notice of the acts which were complained of. As regards this I think that although the notice might have been more precise, it was sufficient to meet the requirements of law and I think it is not necessary in a case like the present to give notice of the time and place of each of the overt acts complained about although it is advisable that in such cases a more detailed notice should be given so that the petitioners may not be prejudiced by the vagueness of the notice merely that they were threatening to assault. The original detailed complaints were abandoned, and no specific details were given as regards the alleged intimidation or such other threats against Satyendra.
3. It is clear from the findings that the petitioners were all living in Calcutta, outside the limits of local jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the evidence appears to show that the acts were mostly committed on Sunday when their shops in Calcutta were closed and they were able to appear on the scene of occurrence. The evidence does not show that at the time of the occurrence they were living within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate nor does it show that at the time the proceedings were initiated they were within his jurisdiction. The Rule must therefore be made absolute and the order directing the petitioners to execute bonds are set aside.