The Chandernagore (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1950, preserved the right to prosecute offences committed prior to its commencement under the then existing law, but the procedure to be followed in respect of such prior offences must be regulated by the French Criminal Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THIS rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Administrator and/or the District Magistrate of Chandernagore to shew cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of Sessions, Chandernagore against the petitioner should not be quashed.

( 2 ) ON 31-1-1951, a petition of complaint was filed before Sri K. P. Roy, learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chandernagore and Magistrate, 1st Class Chandernagore, by one Dabiran Bibi on the following allegations.

( 3 ) THE complainant and her children were in occupation of a plot of land and of huts standing thereon, in Chandernagore as a tenant under the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN Falgoon 1356 B. S. (February-March 1950) communal disturbances broke out in Chandernagore. The complainant and her children left for East Pakistan. After the disturbances had subsided, the complainant with her children returned to Chandernagore in Jaistha or Asarh 1357 B. S. (May-July 1950) and came to learn that the petitioner had caused her huts to be demolished and had taken possession of the plot of land, thus causing loss or damage to the extent of Rs. 4000/ -.

( 5 ) IN order to follow the course of proceedings it is necessary to state certain preliminary matters.

( 6 ) THE city of Chandernagore where the disputed property was situated is French territory.

( 7 ) ON 1-5-1950, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1947 (XLVII (47) of 1947) promulgated an order called the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950.

( 8 ) THE order came into force on the 2nd May 1950.

( 9 ) SECTION 7 of the order runs as follows-"unless otherwise specially provided in the Schedule to the order, all laws in force in Chandernagore immediately before the commencement of this Order which correspond to the enactments specified in the Schedule shall cease to have effect, save as respects things done or omitted to be done before the commencement of this order. "

( 10 ) THE schedule specifies without modifications and restrictions, the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

( 11 ) BY notification no. 132-Eur 1 dated the 1st May 1950, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, was pleased to appoint. (a) the Sessions Judge of Hooghly, 'ex-officio', to be the Sessions Judge of Chandernagore (b) Sri K. P. Roy to be a Magistrate of the first class and Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chandernagore.

( 12 ) THE learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, examined the complainant and directed the Police to report.

( 13 ) THEREAFTER the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner under section 427, Indian Penal Code.

( 14 ) ON the 5th of July and 26th of July 1951, the prosecution witnesses were examined and on the 26-7-1951, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under section 427, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner for having committed mischief, causing loss or damage to Dabiran Bibi to the extent of Rs. 4000/- between Falgoon 1356 B. S. (February-March 1950) and Jaistha 1357 B. S. (May-June 1950 ).

( 15 ) THE accused (petitioner) pleaded not guilty.

( 16 ) ON the 18-8-1951, the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined. The accused (petitioner) was examined under section 342, Criminal P. C.

( 17 ) ON the 30-8-1951, the learned Magistrate framed a fresh charge in the alternative under paragraph (1) of Article 437 of the French Penal Code or section 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 18 ) THE accused (petitioner) did not want to recall the prosecution witnesses.

( 19 ) THE accused (petitioner) was again examined under section 342 of the Criminal P. C. The accused (petitioner) did not examine any witnesses for his defence.

( 20 ) THE arguments were then heard and the case stood over for judgment.

( 21 ) THE learned Magistrate in his order dated 31-8-1951 observed that no definite conclusion could be arrived at from the ev