Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Stephen, J., Carnduff, J.
Guiram Ghoshal & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Lal Behary Das & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 21-03-1910
Jurisdiction - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 147 - The court held that the dispute over the right to perform the duties of a pujari in a temple does not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is not a dispute concerning the right of use of land or water.
Fact of the Case:
This case arises under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the parties, one of whom claims an hereditary right to perform the duties of pujari of an idol in a certain temple, while the other party claims to be merely the servant. The Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction under Section 147 to deal with this dispute, as the rights set forth by the petitioners did not amount to an easement over any land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate was right in his decision. Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not confined to easements but relates to any dispute concerning the right of use of land or water. In the present case, the dispute is over the right to perform the duties of a pujari, which is not the same as the right of use of land. Even though it may be impossible to perform the duties of a pujari without entering the land on which the temple is built, the dispute is over the worship and not the use of the land.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with the dispute over the right to perform the duties of a pujari in a temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute over the right to perform the duties of a pujari in a temple does not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is not a dispute concerning the right of use of land or water.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule, upholding the Magistrate's decision that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
JUDGMENT
1. This case arises u/s 147, Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the parties, one of whom claims as against the other an hereditary right to perform the duties of pujari of an idol in a certain temple. The other party makes the case that he is merely the servant. On the matter coming before the Magistrate, he held that he had no jurisdiction under section, 147, Criminal Procedure Code, to deal with this dispute on the ground that the rights set forth by the petitioners, did not amount to an easement over any land.
2. On this we have granted a Rule to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the case. On considering the matter and hearing the arguments of the learned pleaders, we are of opinion that the Magistrate was right Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, as has been pointed out, is not in terms confined to easements but relates to any dispute concerning the right of use of land or water. In the present case there is no doubt a dispute, but looking at the terms of the section, we cannot consider that it is the right of use of land that is here in dispute. It may be that it is impossible to perform the duties of a pujari without entering upon the land on which the temple is built. But it is the worship which is disputed and not the use of the land. The expression "land," is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it is to be observed that for the purposes of the somewhat analogous provisions of Section 145, it is not referred to as necessarily including buildings. Another view has been adopted by the Madras High Court in Kader Batcha v. Kader Batcha Rowthan 29 M. 237 : 4 Cr. L.J. 58, following a previous decision Muhammad Musaliar v. Kunji Gkek Musaliar 11 M. 323,: of the same Court; but we can only say that, looking at the obvious purposes for which the section was intended, and considering also the scope of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, we think that the present dispute is certainly not one which has intended that the section should cover.
3. The result is that the Rule is discharged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
