Skip to content


Bhupendra Mohan Pal Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. the Chairman of Madaripur Municipality and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in41Ind.Cas.1004
AppellantBhupendra Mohan Pal Chaudhuri and ors.
RespondentThe Chairman of Madaripur Municipality and ors.
Cases ReferredKaroolal Sajawal v. Shyam Lal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 144, order under - magistrate, whether bound to state grounds for order--jurisdiction. - .....is whether the magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order without stating the material facts in the order. for the petitioners, reliance is placed on a decision of this court it the case of karoolal sajawal v. shyam lal 32 c. 935 : 9 c. w. n. 864 : 1 c. l. j. 216 : 2 cr. l. j. 215 and that at first sight seems to support the contention that the statement of material facts is necessary to give the magistrate jurisdiction to pass an order under section 144, criminal procedure code. on reading the ruling as a whole it appears that the real reasons for the decision were based on the ground that it did not appear from the proceedings that the magistrate was of opinion that immediate prevention or speedy remedy was necessary.2. in the present case there can be no doubt on.....
Judgment:

1. We think this Rule must be discharged. The only point that Requires serious consideration is whether the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order without stating the material facts in the order. For the petitioners, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court it the case of Karoolal Sajawal v. Shyam Lal 32 C. 935 : 9 C. W. N. 864 : 1 C. L. J. 216 : 2 Cr. L. J. 215 and that at first sight seems to support the contention that the statement of material facts is necessary to give the Magistrate jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. On reading the ruling as a whole it appears that the real reasons for the decision were based on the ground that it did not appear from the proceedings that the Magistrate was of opinion that immediate prevention or speedy remedy was necessary.

2. In the present case there can be no doubt on the facts reported by the Police and accepted by the Magistrate that there was. a most serious danger of a riot which. was likely to be attended with bloodshed and possibly with murder. It appears that in the dispute between the Municipality on the one hand and the first and the second parties on the other about the right to collect lolls from a certain piece of land both the first and the second parties collected lathiah, and it also appears from the subsequent explanation of the Magistrate that there is further dispute between the first and the second parties themselves as to their rights. In their affidavits neither party has denied the serious allegation that they were prepared to assert their right by armed force. In these facts we think that the Magistrate was fully justified in issuing the emergent order he did. It would have been, however, better had he in his order set out the grounds of his action. But this was done in the formal order subsequently drawn up and served on the petitioners.

3. Considering these facts we are unable to hold that there was any defect of jurisdiction which would justify us in interfering with the order of the Magistrate in the exercise of our powers under the Government of India Act. The Rule is, therefore, discharged.


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