Emperor Vs. Keshav Govind

indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 145, 161-' commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse'-'lawfully commanded to disperse'-unlawful assembly-order to disperse-order given by magistrate- order given in present of police officer-bombay city police act (bombay act iv of 1902), section 40(1).;the expressions; commanded in the manner prescribed (by law to disperse 'in section 145 of the indian penal code and 'lawfully commanded to disperse' in section 151 of the code, mean, in the city of bombay, commanded as prescribed in section 40(1) of the city of bombay police act 1902.;the above expressions cannot be construed in a wider sense so as to include a command by a magistrate to disperse without any order having been given by an officer in charge of a police station. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the commissionerincome tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--reason to believe--commissioner considering extensive information and anonymous petitions and undertaking detailed scrutiny. income tax act 1961 s.132.....to disperse. but the whole of chapter ix of the criminal procedure code, in which section 127 appears, was repealed by the bombay city police act iv of 1902, and sections 127 and 128, criminal procedure code, were replaced by section 40 of that act. section 40, sub-section (1), makes no mention of a magistrate. the only person who may command an unlawful assembly to disperse is an officer in charge of a section; and under section 55 a police officer of superior rank, if on the scene, might perform the, duty of the officer in charge of a section. in this case it appears the police commissioner was on the scene. instead of giving the command to disperse himself, he asked the magistrate to give the command. if the section gives no power to the magistrate to command an unlawful assembly to disperse, since it is only when a member of an unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse that he could be found guilty under section 145, indian penal code, it seems clear that a member of an unlawful assembly who his been commanded by a magistrate to disperse cannot be convicted under that section; nor does the language of section 151, indian penal code, make any difference, although the word 'lawfully' is used instead of 'in the manner prescribed by law.' the explanation shows that it was not intended that the difference in phraseology in the two sections should make any difference in the proper construction of them. i think, therefore, that the construction placed by the learned chief presidency magistrate on section 40 of the bombay city police act is correct. questions 1 and 3 should be answered in the affirmative and questions 2 and 4 in the negative. we think there was not much necessity to refer these questions to the high court, as it would have been open to the magistrate to send the papers to government with his decision for it is really a matter for the legislature to decide whether section 40 of the bombay city police act.....