EMPEROR Vs. ALLI HASSAN LIMBUVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused was charged under Section 26 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. Act VII of 1920) A and Section 123 of the Indian Railways Act, IX of 1890. The learned Honorary Presidency Magistrate acquitted the accused presumably on the ground that the place, where the accused was found, being included within the limits of the railway district, was not included within the limits of the city of Bombay for the purpose of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act, and that the railway police had no power to arrest the accused for an offence under an enactment which was confined only to the city of Bombay.

(2.) Under s. SO of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act VII of 1920 any police-officer may arrest without warrant any person who has committed any offence under this Act, and may seize and detain any conveyance or horse in relation to which such offence has been committed. Similarly, Section 123 of the Indian Railways Act refers to the disobedience of the reasonable directions of any police-officer. The. question is whether the place where the accused committed the offence is included within the city of Bombay for the purpose of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act.

(3.) Under Section 20 of Act V of 1861 police-officers enrolled under the Act shall not exercise any authority, except the authority provided for a police-officer under the Act and any Act which shall thereafter be passed for regulating criminal procedure. Under Section 23 it shall be the duty of every police-officer to detect and bring offenders to justice. Under Section 24 it shall be lawful for any police-officer to lay any information before a Magistrate, and to apply for a summons, warrant, search warrant or such other legal process as may by law issue against any parson committing an offence.