| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2209 1961 SLD 2209 = 1961 PLD 484 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 377 of 195 9, decided on 30th July 1959.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, J
A. Rasheed for petitioners. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 377 of 195 9, decided on 30th July 1959.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, J
A. Rasheed for petitioners. Nemo for the State.
AZAHAR KHAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: S. 144
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: S. 188.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------ -------- S. 144-Second prohibitory order soon after expiry of previous order -Whether and when can be made-Whether violation of such second order can justify prosecution under S. 188, P. P. C. Habitual use of S. 144, Cr. P. C., for making repeated prohibitory orders Strongly deprecated-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 188. The mere issuing of a second prohibitory order sometime after the lapse of the first order under section 144, Criminal Pro cedure Code, 1898 is not necessarily an order without jurisdiction although it should not be resorted to, certainly not in a case in which a proceeding either under section 107 or 145 of the Code would be clearly indicated. Where, therefore, if the second prohibitory order under section 144 of the Code is made immediately after the expiry of the first order or so soon thereafter as to be really a continuation of the first order, that would be clearly in violation of the pro visions of subsection (6) of section 144 and it could then be legitimately said that the Magistrate was not legaly empowered to promulgate such an order. But if there is no such deliberate intention to evade the provisions of subsection (6), and the second order is made sometime after the expiry of the first order in igno rance of the fact that such an order had previously been made, the order would not be an order which the public servant, namely, the Magistrate was not lawfully empowered to promulgate, although it may be an order which may be liable to be set aside on the Magistrate being properly apprised of the existence of the previous order, and the violation of such an order even though it be not a strictly proper order would still be sufficient to justify a prosecution under section 188 of the Penal Code, 1860. Rashbehari Singh and others v. Jagnarain Rai 19 Cr. L J 365 ; Ashutosh Roy and others v. Harish Chandra Chattopadhya and others 29 C W N 411 ; Sheobalak Singh v. Kamaruddin Mandal and others A I R 1922 Pat. 435 ; Viru Kamu and another v. Dewandas Jhamandas A I R 1940 Sind 159 and Ram Narain Sah and another v. Parmeshar Parsad Sah and others A I R 1942 Pat. 414…