MADHO KUNBI Vs. TILAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a criminal reference Under Section 438, Criminal P.C., made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bhandara asking me to quash certain proceedings Under Section 145, of the same Code, on the ground that the preliminary order was made without jurisdiction. The Magistrate acted on an application made by one of the parties to the dispute and the question is whether this amounts to "other information" within the meaning of Section 145(1). The application is a long and detailed one. It sets out the history of the dispute and also the property which is its subject matter. It states the other party is a wealthy and influential zamindar whereas the applicant is only a humble tenant. It then proceeds to give particulars about the incidents which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Instances of the zamindar's highhandedness are set forth with precision dates, names and descriptions of the various instances being given in the fullest detail. On 10th October 1932 the zamindar is said to have sent 34 of his servants to the fields in question to cut and remove the crops forcibly Nine of these are mentioned by name one being a Rohilla and one a sepoy. It states that these persons threatened to beat and to murder the applicant and actually beat his wife and broke her bangles. The applicant then went to the police for protection but they did nothing. He also sent telegrams to the D.S.P., the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner.

(2.) AS nothing happened, the zamindar sent his elephant and several head of cattle to the applicant's fields on 15th October 1932 and deliberately turned them loose there in order to damage his crops. Once again an appeal to the police for protection went unheeded. On 16th October 1932 the zamindar himself came on a horse and ordered the applicant, his children and his servants off the land, and threatened to beat them if they did not go. The applicant then states that "this is going on daily" and will naturally lead to a violent breach of the peace. A large number of other details are also given. The application is signed by two pleaders, Messrs V.M. and J.V. Jakatdar, as well as by the applicant himself. There can be no doubt that this information, if believed would be more than enough to afford a basis for ,the preliminary order. The only question is whether it has been conveyed to the Magistrate in a form that is legally sufficient. I am satisfied it has. The section itself is couched in the widest terms. A Magistrate of the first class can act when he is satisfied from a police report or "other information" that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land, etc. No definition is given of the words "other information", and the omission to use a technical term such as affidavit, evidence, or verified statement, indicates that the widest possible latitude has been allowed in the matter. It is now well settled that proceedings under this section are quasi executive. That was decided by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in In re Pandurang Govind (1901) 25 Bom. 179 in the year 1900, and it was again decided in Nanhe Mal v. Jamil-ul-Rahman AIR 1925 All 316 in the year 1925. But the matter is much older even than that. As early as 1873 objection was taken in Kishoree Mohun Roy (1873) 19 WR 10 (Cr.) to the order of a Magistrate who had acted on the statements of "witnesses not examined on oath and whose examinations were never reduced into writing." It was contended he had acted without jurisdiction, but it was held he had not, and that neither of these things is necessary. All that is required is that the Magistrate should refer to the information on which he has acted in his order and state that he believes it. A passage from an earlier ruling to the following effect was quoted and followed: There is nothing which defines upon what grounds he shall be satisfied, or limits him to being satisfied in order that the revising Court may be able to see that he has not arbitrarily instituted proceedings of this kind.

(3.) MITRA states at p. 298 of Edn. 8 of his book that the Magistrate may act on any information and without any formal complaint being made before him. He is not confined to evidence recorded on oath.... The word information does not refer to any particular way in which a Magistrate's attention should be drawn. It is wide enough to cover knowledge of the Magistrate derived by reading the petition filed by the parties in another proceeding which satisfied him that a breach of the peace was imminent.