1946 Supreme(Nagpur) 38
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Niyogi, C J
EMPEROR – Appellant
Versus
VIJAIDATTA JHA NARAINDUTTA JHA – Respondent
Decided on : 28-06-1946
The main legal point established is that Section 110, Criminal P.C. is intended to control the activities of habitual criminals and dangerous outlaws, and its proceedings are judicial, requiring caution and discretion in its use.
Headnote:
Section 110 - Preventive proceedings - 438 - Criminal P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by the District Magistrate, Mandla, recommending the setting aside of the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances did not justify an order calling upon the non-applicant to enter into a bond for good behaviour in terms of Section 110, Criminal P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged oppressive behavior of the malguzar towards villagers using the forest for nistar, the interpretation of Section 110, and the proper perspective of the case as an administrative nature designed to secure protection of tenants from oppression by malguzars.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 110 is intended to control the activities of habitual criminals and dangerous outlaws, and that the proceedings under this section are judicial and not executive, requiring caution and discretion in its use.
Final Decision: The court discharged the reference, finding that there was intrinsically nothing in the case to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C.
Niyogi, C J—This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by the District Magistrate, Mandla, with the recommendation that the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., should be set aside and further enquiry be ordered.
2. The non applicant Vijaidatta is the malguzar of a number of villages including Bhawartal. This village has a large area of forest which is used for purposes of nistar by the residents of the surrounding villages. It was alleged that in the year 1941, the non-applicant got into heavy debts to satisfy which he had to part with two of his villages and ever since he had been end eavouring to augment his income by taking recourse to harassing and bullying the villagers who used the Bhawartal forest for' nistar, that he was in the habit of extorting money from ignorant villagers by bringing unlawful pressure on them by forcibly impounding their cattle or by wrongfully detaining the villagers and their carts and subjecting them to mal-treatment such as tying them by their necks and trampling them under his horse and threatening their lives with a gun. He struck terror in the hearts of the villagers by declaring that he was exempt from punishment for the offence of murder. He also threatened to implicate innocent villagers in false cases and refused to pass receipts for the amounts which he received from the villagers.
3. The proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., Score started on a report received by Mr. Hyde, the then District Magistrate. An enquiry was made by Mr. B.S. Choukse, Magistrate, First Class, Mandla, who was also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Both parties examined a number of witnesses and the learned Magistrate after a careful scrutiny of the evidence came to the conclusion that the circumstances did not justify an order calling upon the non applicant to enter into a bond for good behaviour in terms of Section 110, Criminal P.C.
4. The learned District Magistrate regards the case as one of administrative nature designed to secure protection of tenants from oppression by malguzars and points out that the effect of this decision is likely to affect adversely the already low morale of poor tenants, and to strengthen the hands of the bullies amongst the the malguzars. It is stressed that the Sub-Divisional. Magistrate overlooked some important decisions of the civil Court filed by the prosecution and that he gave undue prominence to some part of the evidence and ignored the significance of another part, and that he was wrong in allowing himself to be misled by the defence evidence and that the case as between the harassed tenants and tyrannical malguzars was not viewed in proper perspective. Lastly it is emphasized that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate failed to appreciate the attempt of the police to secure protection for the oppresses tenantry as honest and bona fide.
Before proceeding to deal with the facts of the case, it may be observed that the object of Section 110 is preventive and not punitive as the very terms of the section show, that it is intended to control the activities of persons who are by habit robbers, house-breakers, thieves, or forgers, receivers of stolen property or those who habitually protect or harbour thieves or aid in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or those who habitually commit or attempt to commit, or abet the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or who are in the habit of committing or getting involved in the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, or generally those who are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community.
5. As pointed out in In re Rathinam Pillai, 1938 AIR(Mad) 35 Section 110 is intended to deal with ex-convicts, or habitual criminals, and dangerous and desperate outlaws who are so hardened and incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of the p