1. The only questions which arise on this Rule are questions of law. The Rule was not issued on the merits, and on the merits the petitioners have no case.
2. There is now ample authority for the proposition that Section 11Q of the Criminal Procedure Code does not require that the person proceeded against should reside within the local limits of the Magistrate empowered to take action under the section. It is sufficient that the person should be within those limits at the time when proceedings are taken. See Sona Ram v. Emperor 3 C.L.J. 195 : 3 Cr.L.J. 246, Emperor v. Durga Halwai 30 Ind. Cas. 442 : 19 C.W.N. 1022 : 43 C. 153 : 16 cr.L.J. 618; Monindra Mohan Sanyal v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 152 : 28 C.L.J. 25 at. p. 32 : 19 cr.L.J. 696 : 23 C.W.N. 193; Kora Rangan, In re 17 Ind. Cas. 413 : 36 M. 96 : 23 M.L.J. 535 : 13 Cr.L.J. 781 and Emperor v. Munna 35 Ind. Cas. 822 : 39 A. 139 : 14 A.L.J. 1074 : 17 Cr.L.J. 390. The case of Ketaboi v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 993 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 650 must be read with reference to its own facts. The observations in the judgment go beyond the actual decision. The case has already been distinguished on this ground in Emperor v. Durga Halwai 30 Ind. Cas. 442 : 19 C.W.N. 1022 : 43 C. 153 : 16 cr.L.J. 618.
3. A dacoity was committed within the District of the 24-Pergannahs. In the course of the Police inquiries into that case the petitioners were arrested in Calcutta and taken into the 24-Pergannahs. Proceedings were thereafter on the 9th February 1918 taken against them under Section 110 by a Magistrate in the 24 Pergannahs. It is not suggested that the arrests were not lawfully made under Section 54 or some other provision of the Code or that there was anything unlawful in the petitioners as being taken after arrest before a Magistrate in the 24-Pergannahs. If the Police acted in any. manner unlawfully, it is open to the petitioners to take such steps to obtain redress as they may be advised to take. But it seems to me difficult to say that the Magistrate in the 24-Pergannahs, finding these men within the local limits 'of his jurisdiction, though under arrest, was not at liberty to take proceedings against them under Section 110. The Magistrate had no hand in their arrest. He did not cause them to be arrested for the purpose of giving himself jurisdiction. The evidence is that while all the petitioners except Sailendra live in Calcutta, they all, except Manmatha, commit dacoities and other offences in the 24 Pergannahs. Sailendra's house is in the latter District. The case is not distinguishable from that of Monindra Mohan Sanyal v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 152 : 28 C.L.J. 25 at. p. 32 : 19 cr.L.J. 696 : 23 C.W.N. 193 and the observations at page 32 Page of 28 C.L.J--ED of the report may be referred to.
4. As to Manmatha, it is said that he is a receiver in Calcutta of goods obtained in the 24-Pergannahs. Like the others he was in the Magistrate's jurisdiction when, proceedings were taken against him and, in my opinion, there is nothing in Section 110 which has the effect of making the proceedings against him illegal. The Magistrate has power to proceed against any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction against whom he has information that he is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen. Manmatha' at the time proceedings were taken answered to this description.
5. In this view, the Rule must be discharged.
Shamsui Huda, J.
6. I agree with my learned brother in discharging the Rule.