Emperor Vs. Jafar HusaIn and ors.

Emperor vs Jafar HusaIn and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 14, 1923

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464824

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/464824
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Sulaiman, J.
Decided On: Sep 14, 1923
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 106 - Security to keep the peace--Offence involving a breach of the peace. - - 671. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under Section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offe...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Jafar HusaIn and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1924)ILR46All105

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 106 - security to keep the peace--offence involving a breach of the peace. - - 671. that case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. i am satisfied that the magistrate must have thought it necessary to bind them over......a page in type. he has referred to the four witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and after stating what they deposed to, has come to the conclusion that they should be believed. on the finding recorded by him the accused went about canvassing, and on a refusal by the complainant to vote for him struck him with a lathi, and two of his companions, the co-accused, beat him with hands. this case has been proved according to the trying magistrate against him. in my opinion the finding on that point is clear and cannot be interfered with.3. the next point urged is that the order binding them over under section 106 was improper, inasmuch as there was no express finding that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. reliance is placed on the case of abdul ali chowdhury v. emperor (1916) i.l.r. 48 calc. 671. that case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. in the present case the accused was convicted of an offence of assault. in any case the learned magistrate has also expressed an opinion to the effect 'that the accused persons appear to be very troublesome.' i am of opinion that there is no legal flaw in the judgment. the case was a very simple one, and the accused were bound over because of the feelings which may be created in an election campaign. i am satisfied that the magistrate must have thought it necessary to bind them over. the application is without force and i dismiss it.

Full Judgment

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is an application in revision. The first point taken is that the learned District Magistrate has under an oversight rejected the application filed before him summarily and has not considered the case on the merits. It is conceded that no appeal lay to him.

2. However, I have heard the learned vakil for the applicants and have also examined the grounds on which the judgment of the trial court is sought to be set aside. Two points have been urged. The first is that the prosecution evidence has not been thoroughly discussed. I cannot accept this. The judgment of the trying Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, covers more than a page in type. He has referred to the four witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and after stating what they deposed to, has come to the conclusion that they should be believed. On the finding recorded by him the accused went about canvassing, and on a refusal by the complainant to vote for him struck him with a lathi, and two of his companions, the co-accused, beat him with hands. This case has been proved according to the trying Magistrate against him. In my opinion the finding on that point is clear and cannot be interfered with.

3. The next point urged is that the order binding them over under Section 106 was improper, inasmuch as there was no express finding that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Ali Chowdhury v. Emperor (1916) I.L.R. 48 Calc. 671. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable because there the conviction was neither for riot nor for assault, and before proceedings under Section 106 the court had to be satisfied that the offence was one which involved a breach of the peace, or of abetting the same. In the present case the accused was convicted of an offence of assault. In any case the learned Magistrate has also expressed an opinion to the effect 'that the accused persons appear to be very troublesome.' I am of opinion that there is no legal flaw in the judgment. The case was a very simple one, and the accused were bound over because of the feelings which may be created in an election campaign. I am satisfied that the Magistrate must have thought it necessary to bind them over. The application is without force and I dismiss it.

Same Parties Emperor vs Jafar HusaIn and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sulaiman, J.

Criminal