SETHUKARUPPAN AMBALAM ALIAS PASUKALAKKI Vs. PEER MAHAMMAD SAMMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is presented against an order of the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed in the following circumstances. There is a system of fishing, well-known upon this coast, whereby a long net is hung like a curtain in the sea, being supported by floats and kept vertical by weights. This net is laid parallel to and at some distance from the shore, and is then pulled in by means of ropes fixed to the two ends. In this way a catch of fish is landed. In the case now under reference, the system embraced the use of successive nets, and further particulars of it are given in the learned Joint Magistrate's order. It was worked by seven fishing-boats, which were originally owned by Mahomedans; but sometime ago Hindus acquired what is described as a 2| share in the seven boats - in other words the shares enjoyed by the Mahomedans and the Hindus were in the ratio of 5 to 3. Disputes subsequently arose between these two sets of owners due, it has been found, to the Hindus refusing to conform to the customary method of working the boats in laying and drawing the nets, and insisting upon fishing on Fridays and Mahomedan holidays. This naturally provoked the Mahomedans, being, it is said, in breach of the understanding upon which the Hindus acquired their interest; and the Joint Magistrate has found that the dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace. He has accordingly passed an order under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the Hindus to fish only in accordance with the long-established custom of each boat taking its turn, and not to fish at all on Fridays and Mahomedan holidays.

(2.) This order has been attacked before us upon two grounds. It is argued in the first place that for the purposes of Section 147 the open sea is beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, that the Mahomedans have no legal right to restrain the Hindus from fishing in any manner they please.

(3.) The first point turns upon the question whether the sea,. regarding the alleged right of user of which the dispute exists, is within the local limits of the Joint Magistrate's Jurisdiction; because that is one of the conditions necessary for the application of the section. We have heard a very interesting argument upon this question, which is undoubtedly a question of great difficulty. There is no authority directly in point in this country, and indeed very little in any reported Indian decision which would assist us to a right conclusion. The contention that the ordinary Criminal Jurisdiction of a Magistrate extends M only to the water's edge has been urged before us by citation of English law, particularly of the leading case, The Queen V/s. Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. Dn. 63. We are reluctant to leave the point undecided having regard to the labour which has been expended in presenting it to us. But on the second point taken in this petition we think that no such obscurity or scope for difference of opinion exists, and our decision upon it will suffice for the disposal of the case. In these circumstances, and as the question of territorial jurisdiction is not likely to arise frequently in practice, we think it preferable that a pronouncement upon it should await an occasion when its decision is unavoidable.