Full Judgment
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Murshidabad to show cause why an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Lalbagh dated the 5th October, 1929, directing the petitioners to execute bonds for good behaviour under Sections 110 118, Criminal Procedure Code, for a period of three years should not-be set aside on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order inasmuch as the petitioners at the time of the initiation of the proceedings were not living within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
2. In the course of the argument before us the learned Advocate for the petitioners argued on the footing not that the petitioners were not living within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but that they were not within the limits of that jurisdiction, that is to say in a literal and physical sense of being within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction at the date when the proceeding was drawn up. The reason for this change no doubt, is that it is plain from the language of Section 110 itself that 'residence' within the jurisdiction is not meant, and there is authority for the view that the words 'within the local limits of his jurisdiction' are he t to be understood in that sense. If the Legislature had intended to confine the operation of the section to persons residing within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction it would have said so in plain language.
3. On the footing, he wever, that what is meant is that the persons proceeded against must be physically and literally within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction at the time when he draws up the proceeding the learned, Advocate argued that the petitioners were not in fact within those limits at the date of the order and that, therefore, the entire proceedings are bad. In support of that proposition he referred to the case of Satindra Nath Sen, v. King-Emperor 111 Ind. Cas. 394 : 48 C.L.J. 143 : 29 Cr.L.J. 842 where it was held that a Magistrate acts illegally in instituting proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, against a person when he is outside the local limits of his jurisdiction. That decision is binding upon us. It does not, he wever, help the petitioners because in point of fact it transpires on reference to the record that five of the petitioners had been arrested under Section 5, Criminal Procedure Code, and were before the Court when the proceeding was drawn up. With regard to the remaining three petitioners. there is nothing definite upon the point but we think that it was incumbent upon them to show that they were not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and this they have failed to do.
4. In the result we find that there is no ground for our interference in revision, and the Rule is discharged.