The court established that non-compliance with the Deputy Commissioner's order of summary ejection under S. 219, Land Revenue Act, constituted an offence punishable under S. 188, Indian Penal Code.

Batten—This is an application for revision of the judgment of the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad, dismissing the appeal of the applicant Hirasingh, against his conviction by the Naib-Tahsildar, Second Class Magistrate, Hoshangabad, who sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 25 under S. 188, Indian Penal Code.

The applicant was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner to vacate certain common village land and failed to comply with the order. The Deputy Commissioner's order runs as follows:

Under S. 219, Land Revenue Act. I direct that Hirasingh be summarily ejected from these numbers and the hedge he has constructed round the field be removed to allow free access by other villagers.

2. The land was partly common grass land used by the villagers for grazing and for threshing floors, and partly burial ground. It is not denied in this Court that the order was duly communicated to Hirasingh and was disobeyed. He was in fact given great latitude and extension of time was granted to him.

3. The only ground of revision, pressed is the first, which is that non compliance with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 219 of the Land Revenue Act is not an offence punishable under S. 183, Indian Penal Code, and that the proper remedy was the one specified in S. 219.

The relevant portion of S. 219 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, is the first part, of sub-S. (1), which runs as follows :

Any person, who encroaches upon any land set apart by an entry in the village administration paper of a Mahal for communal purposes, or upon any land which is the property of Government, may be summarily ejected by order of the Deputy Commissioner, and any crop which may be standing on the land, and any building or other work which he may have constructed thereon, if not removed by him within such time as the Deputy Commissioner may fix, shall be liable to forfeiture.

3. It is argued for the applicant that the only means of enforcing the Deputy Commissioner's order of summary ejection is the forfeiture mentioned in the section, the order of ejection being preliminary to the action to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner by, means of forfeiture.

It has been held in Chindrakanta De In the matter of the Petition of that S. 188, Indian Penal Code, applies to orders made by public functionaries for public purposes, and not to an order made in a civil suit between party and party and this, ruling was approved in Emperor v. Raghubir Singh,1901 14 CPLR 174.

4. It is urged that the Deputy Commissioner's order is analogous to a civil, decree, one party being the applicant, and the other the public represented by the Deputy Commissioner.

In support of the contention that the order for ejectment is merely preliminary to forfeiture, reliance is placed on Queen-Empress v. Subramanian, 1897 20 ILR(Mad) 1 where it was held that a notice under S. 98 of the Madras Local Board Act, 1884, was a mere preliminary to action to be taken by the president under S. 100 and was a mere notice, and not an order of the kind contemplated in S. 188, Indian Penal Code.

5. In my opinion, the Deputy Commissioner's order is not in any way analogous- to the decree of a Civil Court.

It is an order of a public servant specially empowered by law to make such an order. Moreover, in sub-S. (1) of S. 219 the portion beginning with the words ''and any crop'' plainly in my opinion, give further powers to the Deputy Commissioner in addition to his power of summary ejectment and do not limit his power of ejectment or prescribe how that ejectment is to be carried out.

6. In some cases, as in this, the forfeiture of crops or buildings may not amount to complete ejectment, for the encroacher may continue to occupy the land even if his crops or buildings are forfeited.

The Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, does not prescribe any special means for enforcing the order of ejectment. The provisions of S. 219 (I) of (he Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, are similar to those of sub-S. (3)