LAKSHAN BOR Vs. NARANARAIN HAZRAH

JUDGEMENT

(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/s. 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 Secs.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.