RUPAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners have been convicted under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, for disobedience of an order passed under Section 144, Criminal P.C., and sentenced each to a fine of Rs. 40. The first order in the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., is as follows: 13-12-1941. Police report seen. Issue notice under Section 144, Criminal P.C., on both parties not to go to the land and to show cause by 12-1. S.I. to go to harvest and store the crop and to report compliance on that date.

(2.) The accused persons--petitioners--represent the second party in that case and the complainant-opposite party was the first party. The parties appeared before the Magistrate and filed written statements. After hearing their arguments, the Sub-divisional Magistrate disposed of the case on 30 January 1942. Each party claimed to be in possession of the land. The Magistrate found that the case was "rather doubtful;" but on the ground that the first party produced certain rent- receipts, he found that party to be in possession. He, therefore, discharged the order against the first party and made the order absolute against the second party. He added the direction: "Crop to go to the first party." The prosecution case is that on 10 February 1942, that is one day before the expiry of the period of 60 days from the original order under Section 144, the complainant went to the land in order to harvest the crop. Thereupon, the accused-petitioners came and opposed. The complainant insisted on cutting the paddy, but the accused, Rupan Singh, gave orders for assaulting the complainant. On this the complainant was compelled to come away from the land. This case was deposed to by two witnesses in addition to the complainant, and the story has been accepted by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate.

(3.) Two points are raised before me: Firstly, that the order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., was illegal and without jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the facts alleged do not constitute a disobedience of the order passed by the learned Sub- divisional Magistrate. The portions of the order under Section 144 which are attacked are the portions which direct the Sub-Inspector of Police to harvest and store the crop, and the direction in the final order that the crop is to go to the first party. This latter direction is evidently meant to be complementary to the direction given to the Sub-Inspector to harvest the crop. On a perusal of Section 144, Criminal P.C., there is not the slightest doubt that the direction to the Sub- Inspector to harvest the crop was without jurisdiction. The powers of a Magistrate under Section 144 extend to a direction, in the proper circumstances, to any person "to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management." Here the property was not in the possession or under the management of the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Magistrate had no authority to put him in possession of that property and direct him to harvest the crop. This illegality of the order, however, has no bearing in the present case, because it does not appear that the Sub-Inspector did, in fact, attempt to carry out this direction. The direction is clearly separable from the rest of the order of the Magistrate, and does not vitiate the order as a whole.