W STEWART Vs. HUBERT HUGHES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been issued upon several grounds one of which in my opinion is enough to dispose of this matter. That is: That the police report not having disclosed any apprehension of a breach of the peace at the time the proceedings were drawn up the said proceedings were without jurisdiction.

(2.) It appears on a reference to the proceedings drawn up by the Magistrate that he relied upon a report of the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Murari Police Station dated 24 June 1928, for holding that a dispute likely to induce a breach of the peace existed between the parties. The police report upon which the learned Magistrate relies says: The work on the disputed lands by the first party has been stopped on account of monsoon since about a month ago and so no breach of the peace is apprehended at present but there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace for the disputed lands after the present monsoon.

(3.) The question is whether this report upon which alone the learned Magistrate relies for drawing up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., discloses the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace so as to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to act under that section. The dispute between the parties is with regard to quarrying boulders for ballast purposes and this obviously could not be done during the monsoon when the police report was submitted.