In Re: Tirunarasimha Chariar

On the 27th April 1895 an order was issued by the Taluk Magistrate of Madurantakam u/s 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code forbidding the

erection of a stonecut Vadagalainamam over the entrance of an Odayavar shrine in a certain temple on the ground that such erection would lead to

a riot. The Magistrate took proceedings in the first place on the report of the Village Munsif,--which was followed by a Police report and a petition

from various persons. Before passing the order he took depositions from the Dharmakartha (Tirunarasimha Chariar) and several others.

There is no question as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass the order and u/s 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code his proceedings are

not subject to revision by the High Court. But after the issue of the order viz on May 10th 1895, the Magistrate u/s 476 Criminal Procedure Code

directed the prosecution of the trustee Tirunarasimha Chariar for giving false evidence (Sections 181 and 193 I.P.C.)--the alleged false evidence

being that the trustee had sworn the namam was an old one, whereas in truth it was an entirely new one. The District Magistrate refused to interfere

with this order, and the first question is whether the evidence was taken by the Taluk Magistrate ""in the course of a Judicial Proceeding"" as, if not,

the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to act u/s 467 Criminal Procedure Code.

Under the old Procedure Code X of 1872, similar orders for the prevention of local nuisances were expressly declared to be not.'' Judicial

proceedings, Sections 518, 520) and were therefore not revis-able u/s 297. See E. V. Ramauuja Jeeyarswami v. V. Ramanuja Jeeyar (1881) L.R.

3 M 354 Section 144 of the present Code corresponds to Section 518 Act X of 1872 and though Section 520 was not re-enacted as separate

section in the corresponding chapter, its purport is repeated in the 3rd Clause of Section 435 of the present code. In making this provision, the

legislature had no doubt in view the fact that there might be emergencies in which it was essential for the prompt preservation? of the public peace

to debar the interference of the High Court;--but orders passed u/s 144 have only a temporary duration.

The difficulty arises from the variation in language between Section 297 of the old Code and Section 435 of the present Code. Under the old

Code, powers of revision were granted to the High Court in Judicial proceedings only, and the enacting of Section 520 would seem to imply that

but for that section orders u/s 518 would be ""Judicial proceedings."" Section 435 of the present code enables the High Court to call for the record

of "" any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court,"" and therefore orders u/s 144 would certainly be subject to revision, were it not for the

proviso in the third Clause of the Section.

u/s 4 of the present Code "" Judicial proceeding"" is defined to be "" any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken."" It

seems to us impossible to deny that a Magistrate acting u/s 144 may legally take evidence before issuing an order. He may, it is true, act on

information received or on his own knowledge, without taking evidence, but the proviso in the 3rd Clause which in certain cases authorizes the

Magistrate to pass an order exparte seems to contemplate that ordinarily an order under the section should not be made without an opportunity

being afforded to the person against whom it is proposed to make it to show cause why it should not be passed, See In re Harimohun Malo

(1868) 1 B.L.R. 20 Queen v. Bam Ghundra Mookerjee (1869) 5 B.L.R. 131 This necessarily implies the power to take evidence before coming

to a decision, though a Magistrate is empowered to act upon what is not legal evidence in cases of special urgency.

From this it would appear that both under the old and under the present code these urgent orders were regarded as in their nature ""Judicial

proceedings,""--the only difference being that whereas under the old code Section 520 somewhat inaccurately declared them to be not Judicial

proceedings for the purpose of ousting the High Court''s powers of revision, u/s 297, the present code equally bars the High Court''s jurisdiction

without making an illogical declaration.

For these reasons we come to the conclusion that a Magistrate making an enquiry before issue of an order u/s 144 is acting in a stage of a

judicial proceeding and has therefore jurisdiction to take action u/s 476, if he is of opinion that false evidence has been given before him.

We are not prepared to hold that the Taluk Magistrate was bound to make any further preliminary enquiry, and as he had jurisdiction, we

cannot set aside his complaint, nor will we now express any opinion as to the defence that may be raised at the trial.

The petition is dismissed.