EMPEROR Vs. MUNNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision on the application of the Government Advocate. I think the learned Sessions Judge has dome to an erroneous conclusion founding himself upon a decision of this Court under Section 107, which does not apply and decision of a Calcutta High Court reported in Ketaboi Empress (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 993. That latter decision, which is certainly in point has been dissented from by the Bombay High Court and also the Madras High Court in a decision reported in in re K. Rangan (1901) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 96, which I adopt. In cases of this kind arguments ab inconvenienti can always be produced on either side. On the one hand it may be said that a man accused of an evil reputation beyond the jurisdiction in which his residence is situated, might be subject to great inconvenience having to summon witnesses from a distance. It may be that is one of the risks that travellers in this country, but if they are persons of good character, it does not strike me as a very serious one. On the other hand it is obvious that a notorious thief who had made the Continent too hot for himself might remain at liberty enjoying a notorious reputation as a thief and in his defence set up his residence in France The safer course is to look at the statute. The Section is perfectly plain. The Magistrate is given power to deal with persons who have a general reputation as bad characters, who happen to be within his jurisdiction. No languages is used in the section bearing upon the question of residence at all. The case will have to go back to the Sessions Judge to Confirm the order of the Magistrate or to deal with it as he thinks fit according to law. I may say that, although the Government Advocate was not present, I had the assistance of the Government Pleader.