The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'presence within jurisdiction' under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code for initiating proceedings.

Bose, J—The question in this reference is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to bind over Gajanand, Bhupatsingh and Hanumansingh, under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These three are numbers 1,2 and 13 in the lower Court. The Magistrate who passed the orders is a Mungeli Magistrate while it is admitted that these three persons reside at Bemetara which is outside his jurisdiction.

2. The information on which the learned Magistrate acted was a report made by the Station House Officer of Patharia which is a village within the Mungeli Magistrates jurisdiction. It states that the Lodhis of Patharia held a meeting on the 17th March 1941 and formed a ''Chhatisgarh Lodhi Rajput Mahasaba'' whose object was to raise the status of the Lodhis from Lodhis to Lodhi-Rajputs. Gajanand (No. 1) was elected President of this body and Bhupat (No. 2) Secretary.

3. This body having unilaterally raised the status of the Lodhis to its own satisfaction, next passed a resolution that as these Lodhis were now Lodhi-Rajputs the local Rawats should wash their pots and pans for them. Quite naturally the local Rawats were not as pleased with these gentlemen as they were with themselves and refused to do so on the ground that their own caste restrictions would not allow it. Upon this the Lodhis were advised to engage Athoriya Rawats in place of the local ones. Nos. 1, 2 and 13 (the three with whom we are concerned in this case) supplied them. The result was that the local Rawats lost their employment and it is said that they were not paid for the work they had done.

4. Soon after this further trouble arose. The local barbers refused to shave these outsiders because, according to them, their caste customs would not permit it. The Lodhis thereupon decided to import outside barbers and again Nos. 1, 2 and 13 stepped into the breach and supplied them. Similar trouble arose over dhobis and graziers, and Numbers 1 and 2 held caste meetings advocating the employment of imported outsiders in place of the local persons. This resulted in the formation of a rival faction which called itself the ''Hindu Samaj Sangthan'' and consisted of the disgruntled local Rawats, dhobis, barbers, etc. who had lost their employment.

5. These meetings and counter meetings raised the temper of the village and soon a breach of the peace was apprehended and so the police asked that proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, be instituted.

6. It is clear from the report that though Nos. 1, 2 and 13 reside at Bemetara, they were in and out of the village Patharia and played a prominent part in fomenting the actions which rendered proceedings under section 10? necessary.

7. Section 107 does not say anything about residence but sub-seotion (2) says that proceedings should not be taken under that section unless either, (1) the person informed against, or (2) the place where the breach or disturbance is apprehended, is within the local limits of the Magistrates jurisdiction. In the present case these provisions were satisfied because the place where the breach of the peace was apprehended was within the local limits of the Magistrates jurisdiction, but the section proceeds-and the trouble lies in what follows: and no proceeding shall be taken before any Magistrate, other than..a District Magistrate, unless both the person informed against and the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended, are within the local limits of the Magistrates jurisdiction.

8. The section clearly requires that the person proceeded against must be within the local limits of jurisdiction unless the District Magistrate (we have no Chief Presidency Magistrate in this Province) chooses to initiate the proceedings. But what does that mean ? Does it mean residence within jurisdiction or presence within jurisdiction, however fleeting and temporary, and if so. at what point of time ?

9. The rulings quoted by B.B. Mitra in his commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code, 10th