Patna High Court
Ramgobind Singh And Ors. vs Askrit Singh And Ors. on 13 October, 1958
Equivalent citations: AIR1960PAT342, 1960CRILJ1128, AIR 1960 PATNA 342, ILR 38 PAT 288
JUDGMENT Sahai, J.
1. This case raises an interesting question as to whether criminal jurisdiction over some lands lying on the boundaries of Saran and Shahabad Districts gets constantly transferred from one district to another by reason of the varying course of river Ganges.
2. The Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrab Sadar has drawn up a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of some lands. The parties are not agreed as to the plot numbers of those lands nor as to the village in which they lie. Kotwapatti Rampur and Shankerpur alias Kutubpur are two contiguous villages, the latter being on the south of the former. The first Party's case is that the disputed lands are comprised in plots nos. 173 to 182 and 185 of village Shankerpore; whereas the second party's case is that they are parts of plot nos. 142 to 146 in tauzi No. 4801 and also the whole of plots Nos. 733 and 734 and part of plot No. 732 in tauzi No. 4604 of Kotwapatti Rampur.
The second party objected that the Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrah Sadar had no jurisdiction to draw up the present proceeding in respect of the disputed lands. In view of that objection, the Subdivisional Magistrate deputed a pleader commissioner to make measurements in order to find out the district under which the disputed lands lie and to report. The pleader Commissioner, accordingly, made measurements and submitted a report. He has stated in that report that the disputed lands are 148.60 chains to the south of the southern bank of river Ganges. Being of the opinion that the midstream of the river is the demarcating line between Saran District on the north and Shahabad District on the south, he has come to the conclusion that the lands in dispute lie in the district of Shahabad.
On the basis of the pleader commissioner's report, the Subdivisional Magistrate has held by his order dated the 17th December, 1955, that the disputed lands lie in village Shankerpur within Shahabad district and he has jurisdiction to draw up the proceeding. Being aggrieved by this order, some members of the second party (who will be referred to as the petitioners) have filed this application for revision in this Court. The application is opposed by the members of the first party, and they will be referred to as the opposite party.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. K. B. N. Singh has urged that village Kotwapatti Rampur as also village Shankerpur alias Kutubpur lie within the limits of Chapra Mufassil Police station in Saran District, and irrespective of whether the disputed lands are situated in one village or the other, the Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrah has no jurisdiction to draw up or decide a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of those lands. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Jha for the opposite party has contended that midstream test is the only test on the basis of which the limits of the two districts can be ascertained, and that, as the disputed lands lie not only to the south of the midstream but to the south of the southern bank of the Ganges, there can be no doubt that they are within the limits of Barbara Police station in Arrah Subdivision of Shahabad District for purposes of criminal jurisdiction.
Both the learned Advocates have relied upon Partipal v. Dip Narain, ILR 33 Pat 927 in support of their arguments. Under our direction, the State has also appeared through the Additional Standing Counsel. He has produced before us a copy of notification No. 823P, dated the 27th March, 1906, issued by the Political (Police) Department of the Government of Bengal under Section 4(1), Clause (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) which was published in Part I of the Calcutta Gazette dated the 28th March, 1906, at pages 567-568.
By this notification, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal has declared Barbara Independent Police Out-post under Arrah Police Station to be a police station and has specified the local areas within the jurisdiction of that police station. River Ganges and several villages, including Kutubpur, have been mentioned as being on the northern boundary of the local areas within the limits of the Police Station, On the basis of this notification, the learned Additional Standing Counsel has taken the stand that the disputed lands do not lie within Barbara Police station of Shahabad District but under Chapra Mufassil Police station of Saran District.
He has produced notification No. 1511P., dated the 21st March, 1908, published in Part I of the Calcutta Gazette dated the 25th March, 1908, at page 746, whereby Chapra Town Police station was created as an independent police station and the Chapra Police station was renamed as Chapra Mofassil Police station, and it was stated that that police station would exercise jurisdiction over the rural area of the Police station which was previously called as Chapra Police Station, Notification specifying the areas and boundaries of Chapra Mufassil Police station has not been produced, and the learned Additional Standing Counsel has stated that it could not be found out in the Police Department in spite of diligent search.
4. I wish to make it clear before proceeding to consider the question which arises for decision in this case that we are concerned only with criminal jurisdiction and not with revenue jurisdiction. As to criminal jurisdiction, I may refer to some paragraphs of the Final Report on the Survey and Settlement Operations in the District of Shahabad (1907-1916) by Mr. J. A. Hubback, I.C.S. In paragraph 2 at page 1, he has stated that Shahabad District is bounded on the north by river Ganges. Paragraph 3 on the same page reads:
"3. Variations of Criminal Jurisdiction-- On the other hand the constant fluctuations of the midstream of the Ganges and to a lesser extent the fluctuations of the course of the Sone near its confluence with the Ganges affect very considerably the area included in the criminal Jurisdiction of the district and the area of its component subdivisions".
Mr. Hubback has stated in paragraph ISO at page 39:--
"130. Areas according to criminal jurisdiction: It will appear from the foregoing remarks that the total area of the district and the areas of the individual thanas which are bounded by the Ganges are not capable of easy determination. The boundary of the criminal jurisdiction is the middle of the deep stream of the Ganges, and this varies materially from year to year........"
5. Mr. Jha has contended that the midstream test for ascertaining the limits of Shahabad District as laid down in paragraph 130, as quoted above, has been accepted by a Bench of this Court in ILR 33 Pat 927 (supra), Jamuar and Misra, JJ. constituted the Bench which decided that case. Misra, J. has delivered the main judgment by which he remanded the case for a fresh consideration on fuller materials as to whether the disputed lands lie in Shahabad district. I may here mention that the disputed land in that case also was alleged to be situated either in Kotwapatti Rampur or Shankerpur alias Kutubpur. Jamuar J. appears to have agreed only to the order proposed because be thought that the case must go back for fuller consideration on fresh and better materials. He has not expressed agreement with the reasons given by Misra, J. These reasons cannot, therefore, have the binding force of a Division Bench decision.
6. Mr. Jha has referred to some observations of Misra, J. as showing that be has accepted the correctness of the midstream test. Misra, J. has made those observations while discussing the question whether Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in conflict with paragraph 130 of Mr. Hubback's report. But it seems clear that Mr. Jha's interpretation is incorrect. The supplementary report of the Subdivisional Magistrate in that case was to the effect, that the disputed land admittedly lay to the south of the deep stream of the Ganges and hence it was within the criminal jurisdiction of the district of Shahabad. Had Misra, J. been of the opinion that the midstream test was correct, he would have held, on the basis of that report, that the Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrah Sadar was right in exercising jurisdiction over that land. Later in his judgment, he has made himself quite clear by saying as follows:--
'"The crux of the question, therefore, is the determination of the jurisdiction of the police-station. It appears that the fact that the revenue jurisdiction of a certain area may differ from criminal jurisdiction is not confined only to the district of Shahabad but provision has been made for it in respect of the land which is subject to alluvion and diluvion by the action of a river dividing two districts in other parts of the State as well..... That being the general situation throughout the State, I am satisfied that what really matters in a proceeding under Section 145 is the determination of the questions as to the police-station within whose jurisdiction a certain area falls irrespective of all other consideration".
7. Thus, Misra, J. cannot be held to have accepted the midstream test as the test for ascertaining the criminal jurisdiction of Shahabad and Saran District, and, in my judgment, it cannot possibly be accepted. The police station is the lowest unit for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Various orders passed by Criminal Courts have to be enforced and carried out by the officers of the police stations which are under the jurisdiction of those courts. Such officers of police stations in a subdivision or a district are, for some purposes, under the control of the Subdivisional Magistrate and the District Magistrate.
It would be extremely anomalous if areas lying within the limits of a police station appertaining to one subdivision or one district were to be held to lie within the jurisdiction of another subdivision or another district for purposes of criminal jurisdiction. The district or sub-division within which a police station lies must, of necessity, exercise jurisdiction over the entire areas within the, limits of that police station.
8. Mr. Jha has not been able to show any provision of law to the effect that the criminal jurisdiction of Saran or Shahabad District extends only to the midstream of the Ganges which lies between them. He has nothing but the opinion of Mr. Hubback only to support him. On the other hand, Section 4(1) (s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:--
"(s) 'police-station' means any post or place declared, generally or specially, by the State Government to be a police-station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf."
Unless the State Government gives the midstream of the Ganges on the boundary of the local limits of a police station, there can be no foundation at all for saying that the local area of that police station must go on changing according to the ever-changing course of the river. Even in the event of the State Government giving such a boundary, the question of change in the jurisdiction of the police station will not be free from doubt. The position, however, is clear in the present case. In notification No. 823P., the northern boundary of Barhara police station of Shahabad District has been stated as river Ganges and some villages including Kutubpur. Midstream of the Ganges has not been mentioned in it.
The areas specified as being within the jurisdiction of the police station do not include the whole or part of Shankarpur alias Kutubpur or Kotwapatti Rampur. That being so, a change in the course of the river cannot place any area of either of those two villages under its jurisdiction without a notification to that effect under Section 4(1) (s) by the State Government. Neither of those two villages can, therefore, be said to fall under Shahabad District in which Barhara Police station lies. The fact that Kutubpur has been shown on the northern boundary of limits of Barahara police station and the fact that the southern limits of the Chapra Mufassil Police station are on the northern boundary of Barhara police station leave no room for doubt that both Kotwapatti Rampur and Shankarpur alias Kutubpur are within the jurisdiction of Chapra Mufassil Police station.
9. The first three sub-sections of Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide as follows:
"(1) Every State (excluding the presidency towns) shall be a sessions division, or shall consist of sessions divisions: and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts.
(2) The State Governments may alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts.
(3) The sessions divisions and districts existing when this Code comes into force shall be sessions divisions and districts respectively, unless and until they are so altered".
It has been argued, on the basis of paragraph 130 of Mr. Hubbacks report, that midstream of the Ganges is the dividing line between Shahabad and Saran Districts, and that the southern boundary of Saran and the northern boundary of Shahabad would be the midstream of the Ganges wherever it happens to be at a particular time unless and until the State Government alters the limits of the two districts under Sub-section (2) of Section 7. A perusal of Section 7 does lend some support to this argument; but, if the section is read with Section 4(1) (s) of the Code, it will be seen that there is no substance in the argument.
The limits of the police stations are fixed by notifications under that provision. So long as no alteration is made by the State Government in the limits or local areas of a police station lying within the jurisdiction of one of the two districts, the district which has been exercising jurisdiction over the police station will continue to exercise jurisdiction over the areas within the limits specified in the notification. In these circumstances, I do not think that the limits of either of the two districts for purposes of criminal jurisdiction will go on changing as a result of fluctuation in the midstream of river Ganges.
10. The dispute between the parties is only as to whether the disputed lands lie in Kotwapatti Rampur or Shankarpur alias Kutubpur. It is not suggested that those lands lie in any other village. I, therefore, agree with Mr. K.B.N. Singh as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the lands in dispute are situated within the jurisdiction of Chapra Mufassil Police station of Saran District and not Barhara police station of Shahabad District, and hold accordingly.
11. In view of the conclusion which I have reached, it is not necessary for me in this case to decide whether Sections 182 and 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to proceedings under Section 145 also. Misra, J. has held in Partipal's case, ILR 33 Pat 927 that they do apply; but, with great respect to him, I am of opinion that the matter is rather doubtful. The difficulties pointed out by him can be solved by exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Sections 439 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but it is unnecessary to enter into any further discussion. The point may have to be considered afresh in a case in which it properly arises.
12. As the Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrah has manifestly no jurisdiction over the lands in dispute in this case, the application is allowed, and the proceeding is quashed. If the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the disputed lands lie feels on a report from Chapra Mufassil police station or otherwise that there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace, it will be open to him to take suitable action in accordance with law.
Untwalia, J.
13. I agree with the order proposed as also with the reason therefor.