(1.) This matter was referred for the decision of the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Bartley, J., and Lodge, J. in these terms: This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Faridpur and the opposite party to show cause why an order made under Section 147(2), Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The facts are that a path leading from the house of Abdur Rahaman Mulla, the opposite party, to the public road passed over the lands of the petitioner, Hem Oh. Banerji. The opposite party claimed a right of public user over this path; petitioner objected, and finally closed the path by erecting a stable on it. Proceedings were taken under Section 147, Criminal P.C., with the result that the Magistrate made the following order: Thus I order that Abdur Rahaman and his family may use the path, and Hem Ch. Banerji is prohibited to make any interference with the exercise of a right of way of Abdur Rahaman and his family. He is further ordered to remove the stable from the path.
(2.) It is to the last sentence of the order that exception has been taken, and the point argued in connexion with it is that no such mandatory order can be made under Section 147(2), Criminal P.C. The wording of that section is "if it appears to such Magistrate that such right exists, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right."
(3.) The question for decision is whether these words can be construed as empowering a Magistrate to order the removal of an existing interference with the right in question. Reported decisions of this Court on the point are in direct conflict. "Under the law as it was before the amendment of the Criminal P. C., a Magistrate was empowered to make an order permitting such thing to be done, or directing that such thing shall not be done."