EMPEROR Vs. GAJANAND S/O. MANBODH LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this reference is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to hind over Gajanand, Bhupatsing and Hanumansing, under Section 107, Criminal P.C. These three are numbers 1, 2 and 13 in the lower Court. The Magistrate who passed the orders is a Mungeli Magistrate while it is admitted that these three persons reside at Bemetara which is outside his jurisdiction. The information on which the learned Magistrate acted was a report made by the Station House Officer of Patharia which is a village within the Mungeli Magistrate's jurisdiction. It states that the Lodhis of Patharia held a meeting on 17th March 1941 and formed a "Chhatisgarh Lodhi Rajput Mahasaba" whose object was to raise the status of the Lodhis from Lodhis to Lodhi-Rajputs. Gajanand (No. 1) was elected President of this body and Bhupat (No. 2) Secretary. This body having unilaterally raised the status of the Lodhis to its own satisfaction, next passed a resolution that as these Lodhis were now Lodhi-Rajputs the local Rawats should wash their pots and pans for them. Quite naturally the local Rawats were not as pleased with these gentlemen as they were with themselves and refused to do so on the ground that their own caste restrictions would not allow it. Upon this the Lodhis were advised to engage Athoriya Rawats in place of the local ones. Numbers 1, 2 and 13 (the three with whom we are concerned in this case) supplied them. The result was that the local Rawats lost their employment and it is said that they were not even paid for the work they had done.

(2.) SOON after this further trouble arose. The local barbers refused to shave these outsiders because, according to them, their caste customs would not permit it. The Lodhis thereupon decided to import outside barbers and again Nos. 1, 2 and 13 stepped into the breach and supplied them. Similar trouble arose over dhobis and graziers, and Nos. 1 and 2 held caste meetings advocating the employment of imported outsiders in place of the local persons. This resulted in the formation of a rival faction which called itself the "Hindu Samaj Sangthan" and consisted of the disgruntled local Rawats, dhobis, barbers, etc., who had lost their employment. These meetings and counter meetings raised the temper of the village and soon a breach of the peace was apprehended and so the police asked that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., be instituted. It is clear from the report that though Nos. 1, 2 and 13 reside at Bemetara, they were in and out of the village Patharia and played a prominent part in fomenting the actions which rendered proceedings under Section 107 necessary. Section 107 does not say anything about residence but Sub-section (2) says that proceedings should not be taken under that section unless either, (1) the person informed against, or (2) the place where the breach or disturbance is apprehended, is within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. In the present case these provisions Were satisfied because the place where the breach of the peace was apprehended was within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction, but the section proceeds and the trouble lies in what follows:

(3.) ANOTHER possible way, though again I say nothing about it because that is not the case here, might be to show, quite apart from any question of residence, that the person in question was present within jurisdiction when the proceedings were started; at any rate that is one of the points of view urged in argument. But that is the most that can be said. If a residence within jurisdiction is not proved, then at least temporary presence at the critical time must be established. That is not established here and consequently the order against the three persons cannot stand. The learned Advocate-General voiced a fear expressed by the District Magistrate which is to the effect that if the section is so interpreted, then preventive action could never be taken against persons who reside just over the border and who infiltrate within jurisdiction for the purpose of creating trouble and then leave it again as soon as their purpose is accomplished. But that is not so. All that the District Magistrate has to do in such cases is to initiate the proceedings himself and make the necessary orders. The references is accepted and the proceedings against the three persons named above are quashed. The bonds, if given, will be cancelled. But of course it will be open to the District Magistrate if he still apprehends a breach of the peace to commence proceedings against them afresh.