High CourtsDivision Bench

In Re: Gurusawmi Nadar and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 January 1912 · Citation: (1912) 22 MLJ 251

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abdur Rahim, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 107
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 375 words

Abdur Rahim, J.—There is absolutely no warrant for the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. There is no evidence to show that the

accused were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or do any act, which would probably occasion a breach of the

peace. All that is found is that on a previous occasion, about a year ago, the Nadars asserted their right to carry palkis through the public street on

occasions of marriage, and there was a breach of the peace as some people in the village opposed the Nadars taking palkis in procession on the

ground apparently of the Nadars'' caste which, in their opponents'' estimation, is not high enough to justify their using palkis during marriage.

Nothing particular happened at the time the present proceedings were instituted, except that the marriage season was fast approaching and the

police and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were apprehensive that if the Nadars insisted on their right as before and the other party opposed them

there might be a disturbance. It is not even shewn that the accused had any marriages to celebrate in their family, and that they were preparing to

carry palkis in procession. All that is alleged against them is that they are leading men of their community. Supposing that some of the Nadars or

the accused themselves wanted this year to take palanquins in procession through streets, they would have every right to do so and if any person

wanted unlawfully to oppose them in the exercise of such right, it is they that ought to be bound then and not persons who were lawfully exercising

or wanted to exercise their ordinary right. It is the duty of the Sub-Divisional officer who is responsible for the peace of his division to use his

authority for the protection of persons who seek to exercise a right which the law allows them and to restrain persons who threaten to obstruct the

exercise of such right,'' and for this purpose to enforce, if necessary, the provisions of Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, not against the

former but against the latter. I set aside the order u/s 107, Criminal Procedure Code, and the bonds executed by the accused will be discharged.