Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdry 1St Party, v. Bepin Chandra Roy Chowdry 2Nd Party, Opposite Party.

The objection taken in this case on which a rule was granted is represented to us as being this The Sub-Divisional Magistrate instituted proceedings under sec. 107, C.Cr P., for the purpose of binding the Petitioner down to keep the peace. Objection was taken to his trying the case and consequently it was, under the orders of the District Magistrate, transferred to a Magistrate, not in the Sub-Division but holding his Court at the head-quarters of the district. When the case was taken up before this Magistrate, objection was raised that the original order instituting the proceedings was bad, inasmuch as it did not give sufficient notice to the parties of the substance of the information upon which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had acted. The Magistrate out of consideration for the parties amended the proceedings by drawing up a fresh proceeding citing the substance of the information in full, but still relying upon the same information upon which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had proceeded. It has been objected that this was a fresh proceeding which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make, inasmuch as the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and we understand that it was on this ground that the rule was granted.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 1898, however, distinctly provides for such a case, Sec. 12 empowers the Local Government to appoint certain persons to be Magistrates of certain classes in a district, and it enables such government to define the local areas within which such Magistrates may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be invested. Sub-sec. (2) declares that, except as otherwise provided by such definition, that is, without an order restricting the power of any Magistrate appointed by the Local Government, “the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district.” Consequently unless the powers of this Magistrate had been restricted to a certain local area, he had jurisdiction over the entire district. We have examined the Calcutta Gazette in which the appointment of this Magistrate was notified and we can find no such restriction. Under such circumstances, the Deputy Magistrate had jurisdiction over the entire district and had jurisdiction to institute this proceeding if it were necessary to consider this as a fresh proceeding which is doubtful. At all events, the objection fails and the rule must be discharged.

S.C.S

Rule discharged.