Chinnappa Eshwarappa Vs. State of Mysore

Chinnappa Eshwarappa vs State of Mysore

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Dec 24, 1959

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/372710

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/372710
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.S. Hegde, J.
Decided On: Dec 24, 1959
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 443 of 1959
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1863 [REPEAL BY ACT II /1927] Section 6 of Act II of 1927 & Section 8; [A.S. Bopanna, J] Application of the repealing Act Held, Section 8 would clearly indicate that the repeal of Religious Endowments Act would apply in so far as Hindu Religious Endowments to which the Act applies. But...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5-A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 12

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chinnappa Eshwarappa

Respondent

State of Mysore

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5-A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 12
Reported In: AIR1960Kant242; AIR1960Mys242; 1960CriLJ1226a

Excerpt

- religious endowments act, 1863 [repeal by act ii /1927] section 6 of act ii of 1927 & section 8; [a.s. bopanna, j] application of the repealing act held, section 8 would clearly indicate that the repeal of religious endowments act would apply in so far as hindu religious endowments to which the act applies. but in so far as the jain religious endowments, the repeal by act (ii) of 1927 is not applicable. further, the religious endowments act 1863 has been repealed only in so far as it applies to hindu religious endowments and the repeal is specific to that extent and therefore the applicability of the act to the jain religious endowments act, 1863 is still applicable to the jains of dakshina kannada. section 10; maintainability of application under power of the district judge to fill up the vacancy of the membership of jaina mathasthapana committee held, section 10 of the act would provide for filing application for filling up the vacancy which would occur among the members of the committee before the district judge as contemplated under the provisions of the act, since the same would remain in force in so far as the jain religious endowments are concerned. section 10 is the only provision on which the applicants would have to fall back upon to seek for filling of the vacancy that arises in the committee. that being so, the i additional district judge, was not justified in dismissing the petition filed under section10 of the act, as not maintainable. the court has to consider the application filed by the petitioner under section 10 of the religious endowments act, 1863 (act xx of 18863). .....police. (b) in the presidency town of bombay, of the superintendent of police, and (c) elsewhere, of a deputy superintendent of police. shall investigate any offence punishable under section 161, section 165 or section 165-a of the indian penal code, (act 45 of 1860) or under sub-section (2) of section 5 of this act, 'without the order of a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class,' as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant.' (underlining (here in single quotation marks--ed.) is mine). section 5-a does not say that that magistrate issuing orders under that section should be a magistrate having power to try that case. all that it stipulates is that he must be a magistrate of the first presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class. magistrates are appointed under s. 12 of the code of criminal procedure. section 12 reads as follows : '(1) the state government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit besides the district magistrate to be a magistrate of the first, second or third class in any district outside the presidency towns; and the state government or the district magistrate, subject to the control of the state government, may from time to time, define the local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be respectively invested under this code. (2) except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout that district.' ordinarily, a magistrate appointed to a district has jurisdiction over the entire district. but the exercise of all or any of the powers conferred on him under the criminal procedure code may be restricted to any particular area. the powers under s 5-a of the 'act' are not the powers conferred on him under the criminal procedure code. that being so, any magistrate of the first class appointed to a district, can exercise that power in respect of all offences committed in the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

(1) The point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether a First Class Magistrate appointed to a district can issue orders under S. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') for investigation of a case under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, if the offence in question has been committed in a place outside his local area as defined under S. 12, Cr.P.C.

(2) The order in question relates to an offence which is said to have taken place outside the local area of the Magistrate. The petitioner is prosecuted before the Special Judge at Dharwar for an offence under S. 161, I.P.C. The investigation in the case was conducted by the P. S. I., A. C., and P. I., Dharwar. The offence is alleged to have taken place in Karajig, which is within the local area of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Haveri. But orders for investigating into the case were given by the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar. Both Haveri and Dharwar are in the same war. Both Haveri and Dharwar are in the same direct, i.e., Dharwar district. The petitioner contends that the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar had no jurisdiction to order investigation in the instant case as his jurisdiction did not extend to Haveri area. Section 5-A of the 'Act' reads as follows :

'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (Act V of 1898), no police officer below the rank.

(a) in the Presidency Towns of Madras and Calcutta, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police.

(b) in the Presidency Town of Bombay, of the Superintendent of Police, and

shall investigate any offence punishable under Section 161, Section 165 or Section 165-A of the Indian penal Code, (Act 45 of 1860) or under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of this Act, 'without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First class,' as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant.' (Underlining (here in single quotation marks--Ed.) is mine).

Section 5-A does not say that that Magistrate issuing orders under that section should be a Magistrate having power to try that case. All that it stipulates is that he must be a Magistrate of the First Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. Magistrates are appointed under S. 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 12 reads as follows :

'(1) The State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit besides the District Magistrate to be a Magistrate of the first, second or third class in any district outside the Presidency towns; and the State Government or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the State Government, may from time to time, define the local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be respectively invested under this Code.

(2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout that district.'

Ordinarily, a Magistrate appointed to a District has jurisdiction over the entire district. But the exercise of all or any of the powers conferred on him under the Criminal Procedure Code may be restricted to any particular area. The powers under S 5-A of the 'Act' are not the powers conferred on him under the Criminal Procedure Code. That being so, any Magistrate of the First Class appointed to a district, can exercise that power in respect of all offences committed in the District to which he is appointed. Even otherwise, it is not the petitioner's case that either the State Government or the District Magistrate had excluded any area in the Dharwar district from the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate, at Dharwar. Mere definition of his local areas is not the same thing as excluding any particular area is not the same thing as excluding any particular area from his jurisdiction. Gulabrao Laxmanrao v. Emperor AIR 1935 Bom 409. I have followed this decision in Cr. R. P. No. 288 of 1959(Mys).

(3) No other point needs consideration. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

(4) Petition dismissed.

Same Parties Chinnappa Eshwarappa vs State of Mysore Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Hegde, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5-A; Code of Cr...

Criminal