Skip to content


Lakshan Bor and ors. Vs. NaranaraIn Hazrah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Cal260,66Ind.Cas.71
AppellantLakshan Bor and ors.
RespondentNaranaraIn Hazrah and ors.
Cases ReferredChandi Charan Giri v. Gadadhar Prodhan
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 69, sub-section (3) - disobedience of order of collector--collector, whether competent to direct prosecution--penal code (act xlv of 1869), section 188--criminal procedure code (act v of 1893), sections 195, 476, order for prosecution under. - .....accordingly been directed.2. the contention of the petitioners is that section 188 of the indian penal code is not applicable to the fasts alleged and that they should be dealt with, if at all, under the code of civil procedure, order xxxix, rule 2.3. in the case reported in chandi charan giri v. gadadhar prodhan 44 ind. cas. 177 : 45 c. 336 : 22 c. w. n. 165 : 27 c. l. j. 316 : 19 cr. l. j. 273, it has been held that the proceedings of a collector acting under the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of the bengal tenancy act are of a civil nature. his court is, therefore, ore of civil jurisdiction and, in the absence of any special bar, by virtue of section 141 of the code of civil prosed tire, the procedure provided in that code would appear to become applicable. in support of the.....
Judgment:

1. In this case is appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer of Contai, as a Collector, acting under the provisions of Section 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, sub Section (3), made an order prohibiting tie removal of certain crops. The case against the petitioners is that they disobeyed the said order and their prosecution under the provisions of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Cod has accordingly been directed.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable to the fasts alleged and that they should be dealt with, if at all, under the Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXIX, Rule 2.

3. In the case reported in Chandi Charan Giri v. Gadadhar Prodhan 44 Ind. Cas. 177 : 45 C. 336 : 22 C. W. N. 165 : 27 C. L. J. 316 : 19 Cr. L. J. 273, it has been held that the proceedings of a Collector acting under the provisions of Sections 69 and 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are of a Civil nature. His Court is, therefore, ore of civil jurisdiction and, in the absence of any special bar, by virtue of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Prosed tire, the procedure provided in that Code would appear to become applicable. In support of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners stress is then laid on the decision of this Court reported in Chandrakanta De, In the matter of 6 C. 446 : 7 C. L. J. 50 : 5 Ind. Jur. 412 : 3 Ind. Dec (n. s.) 289.

4. But, as is apparent from Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the primary purpose of orders made under that section is to prevent benches of the peace and we cannot suppose that for the sanction to such orders the Legislature intended to rely or solely to rely on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Without, therefore, seeking to lay down that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXIX, are inapplicable, we must hold that it is competent to the Collector in such asses to act under the provisions of Section 195 or Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure end to direst a prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of alleged disobedience to his order. The rule is accordingly discharged.


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