TUKARAM Vs. DAGDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a trial held by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates, Basim, the applicant Tukaram was ordered, under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act, to pay to the complainant Dagdu Rs. 15 as compensation by way of fine and Rs. 8-8-0 by way of expenses for illegal seizure of six head of cattle belonging to the complainant and impounding the same in the cattle pound. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basim to whom an appeal was preferred upheld the above order of the Bench of Magistrates and dismissed the appeal. The applicant has therefore filed an application for revision to this Court on several grounds the first of which is reproduced below: That Mr. S.K. Rahim was appointed an Honorary Magistrate by virtue of notification No. 1653-889V appearing in the C.P. Gazette dated 4th August 1923 on p. 937 for five years only and the Quarterly Civil List for 1st July 1923 also shows the date of expiry of the term of his office as 29th July 1928. Thus he had ceased to be a Magistrate on 6th October 1928 when the judgment was delivered by the Bench. It is thus illegal and passed without jurisdiction.

(2.) IN reply to the rule calling upon the District-Magistrate to show cause against the application that learned officer referring to the above ground merely stated that the judgment of the trying Magistrates was not vitiated because: The Honorary Magistrates under standing orders continue to exercise powers so long as they are not cancelled or withdrawn.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate has accordingly appeared today and placed upon the record a copy of the Circular letter No. 2062/1774-V issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Central Provinces, to all District Magistrates, Central Provinces and Berar, which makes it perfectly clear that the practice of appointing Honorary Magistrates under Section 12, Criminal P.C., for a term of five years was wrong because the said section like Section 14 ibid makes no provision of any time limit. The letter therefore states that: Government has accordingly been advised that the five years term imposed in accordance with recent practice is ultra vires and should be regarded merely as as expression of the intention of the Local Government to withdraw the Magistrate's powers after the expiry of five years, unless in the meanwhile it determines to continue them.