Emperor Vs. Vishvanath Vishnu Joshi - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Mumbai |
| Jun-20-1919 |
| Criminal reference No. 8 of 1919 |
| Shah and ;Hayward, JJ. |
| (1919)21BOMLR1084 |
| Emperor |
| Vishvanath Vishnu Joshi |
criminal procedure code act v of 1898), section 190 -cattle trespass act i of 1871) section. 20-magistrate-cognizance of offences-authorization of magistrate.;a magistrate, authorised under section 190 of the criminal procedure code, 1898 to take cognizance of offences upon receiving complaints, can take cognizance of an offence under section 20 of the cattle trespass act, 1871, even in the absence of a spirits authorization in that behalf. - .....authorized by the district magistrate to deal with complaints under section 20 of the cattle trespass act. there is no suggestion, however, that this second class magistrate was not authorized under section 190 of the code of criminal procedure to take cognizance of offences upon receiving complaints, and it must be taken for the purposes of this reference that he was so authorized. no further special authority to take cognizance of complaints under section 20 of the cattle trespass act is needed in view of the definition of the word 'offence' in section 4, clause (o), which includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the cattle trespass act. it is clear from the second schedule of the code of criminal procedure that offences under special acts punishable with imprisonment for less than one year or with fine only are triable by any magistrate. we think, therefore, that the second class magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. this conclusion derives support from the decision in budhan mahto v. issur singh i.l.r(1907) cal. 926.2. we direct the record and pdroceeings to be returned.
Shah, J.
1. We think that the Second Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The only ground upon which the District Magistrate has suggested that he had no jurisdiction is that he was not specially authorized by the District Magistrate to deal with complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. There is no suggestion, however, that this Second Class Magistrate was not authorized under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance of offences upon receiving complaints, and it must be taken for the purposes of this reference that he was so authorized. No further special authority to take cognizance of complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act is needed in view of the definition of the word 'offence' in Section 4, Clause (o), which includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It is clear from the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure that offences under special Acts punishable with imprisonment for less than one year or with fine only are triable by any Magistrate. We think, therefore, that the Second Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. This conclusion derives support from the decision in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh I.L.R(1907) Cal. 926.
2. We direct the record and pdroceeings to be returned.