1. These two Rules were heard together. They arise out of two proceedings drawn up under Section 107, Criminal P. C. What happened in the case was this : On a report of the police against a number of persons, two proceedings were started by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Uluberia under Section 107, Criminal P. C. The cases bow-ever were transferred from Uluberia to Howrah Sudder by the District Magistrate of that place and the District Magistrate then transferred the two oases to Mr. Barua, a Deputy Magistrate exercising first class powers and stationed at Howrah. In the proceedings which had been drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Uluberia, the petitioners had not been included in the list of persons against whom the proceedings were drawn up. Mr. Barua however after going through the police report was of opinion that those men also should have been included in the proceedings and thereupon he (Mr. Barua) drew up fresh proceedings against a number of men including the petitioners before us, except petitioner No. 3 in Revision Case No. 1174 of 1931. It is against the orders of Mr. Barua whereby he drew up the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 107 that the present Rules are directed.
2. The Rules were issued on two grounds. The first ground was that as the petitioners were men of Uluberia Subdivision and as the alleged apprehension of a breach of the peace was within the local limits of the Subdivision of Uluberia, Mr. Barua had no jurisdiction in the matter. Section 12, Criminal P. C, is a full and sufficient answer to this contention. Mr. Barua was a Magistrate exercising! first class powers stationed at Howrah and the local area of his jurisdiction had never been defined under Sub-section (1) of that section. That being so, his jurisdiction extended under Sub-section (2) to the whole of the District of Howrah including the place where the petitioners resided and also including the place where a breach of the peace was apprehended.
3. The second ground on which the Rules were obtained was that Mr. Barua had no fresh materials before him justifying him in drawing up the proceedings against the present petitioners, the contention on behalf of the petitioners being that on the same report on which Mr. Barua based his proceedings the Subdivisional Magistrate of Uluberia had thought fit not to include the petitioners in the proceedings drawn up by him. Here also I am unable to find anything wrong in law done by Mr. Barua. Mr. Barua had before him the police report which included the names of the petitioners and the mere fact that the Subdivisional Magistrate of Uluberia had taken a different view of that police report and the circumstances of the ease was no reason to prevent Mr. Barua from proceeding on the same police report and drawing up proceedings on the basis thereof under Section 107, Criminal P. C. Mr. Ganguli for the petitioners could not point out any provision of the law which could have been said to have been violated by Mr. Barua. Both these Rules are therefore discharged.
4. I agree.