MANINDRA MOHAN SANYAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Did Clause (e) find a place in the previous Codes?

(2.) No, and if the scope of Section 110 has been extended by Clause (e), the cases cited would not be direct authorities but would, nevertheless, support the principle of construction that Clause (f) must be read with the preceding clauses, so far as can be, and as contemplating similar cases see Wahid Ali Khan v. Emperor (1907) 11 C.W.N. 789 where Clause (f) was read with Clause (d).

(3.) The words "is so" in Clause (f) refer to present danger. Mere inculcation of revolutionary ideas, unaccompanied with overt acts exhibiting present danger to the person or property, would not bring the case within the clause. Next "Community" in Clause (f) must mean the community in general within the Magistrate s jurisdiction. The finding of a connection between the petitioners and an organization to commit dacoity in other parts of Bengal would not be sufficient, as the dacoities might be committed outside the Magistrate s jurisdiction, and might affect only a fraction of the community, viz, the propertied class.