Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mahu and ors. Vs. Emperor

Mahu and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 27, 1918
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/476819

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 107 - Security, when to be demanded--Wrongful act--Breach of peace--Proof. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahu and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1918All102(1); 44Ind.Cas.965

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 107 - security, when to be demanded--wrongful act--breach of peace--proof. - henry richards, c.j.1. in this case the magistrate has made an order under section 107 against the applicants. it appears there is a cattle market at a certain place not very far from land which is owned by the applicants. the magistrate had reason to think that the applicants intended to open a market upon their land for the sale of cattle. he thought, and i agree with him, that this circumstance would very likely cause a breach of the peace. what would most likely happen was that the owners of the older market would raise objection to the new market and that the applicants as owners of the land upon which the new market would be held would resist the action of the owners of the older market. the section, however, provides that where the magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act which may occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, the magistrate may then make the order. it is not pretended that the magistrate was informed that any of the applicants intended to commit a breach of the peace. he was only informed that they intended to hold a market on their own land. if this act was wrongful act then the magistrate would be entitled to act. but it is not contended that the act would be wrong. under these circumstances i do not think that the order could legally be made. i accordingly allow the application and set aside the order of the magistrate.

Full Judgment

Henry Richards, C.J.

1. In this case the Magistrate has made an order under Section 107 against the applicants. It appears there is a cattle market at a certain place not very far from land which is owned by the applicants. The Magistrate had reason to think that the applicants intended to open a market upon their land for the sale of cattle. He thought, and I agree with him, that this circumstance would very likely cause a breach of the peace. What would most likely happen was that the owners of the older market would raise objection to the new market and that the applicants as owners of the land upon which the new market would be held would resist the action of the owners of the older market. The section, however, provides that where the Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act which may occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, the Magistrate may then make the order. It is not pretended that the Magistrate was informed that any of the applicants intended to commit a breach of the peace. He was only informed that they intended to hold a market on their own land. If this act was wrongful act then the Magistrate would be entitled to act. But it is not contended that the act would be wrong. Under these circumstances I do not think that the order could legally be made. I accordingly allow the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial