Queen-Empress vs Mutasaddi Lal

Banerji, J.—The applicant was called upon by a Magistrate to furnish security for good behaviour. After holding proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate being of opinion that sufficient reasons had not been made out for ordering the applicant to give security, discharged him u/s 199 of the Code. The District Magistrate has ordered further inquiry into the matter, purporting to act under sectio.n 437. It is urged that under that section the Magistrate of the District was not competent to order further inquiry, as the applicant was not an accused person" within the meaning of that section. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains no definition of an " accused person," but it was held by the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Mona Puna ILR (1892) 16 Bom. 661, that the term "accused" means "a person over whom a Magistrate or other Court is exercising jurisdiction." The same view was held by the Calcutta High Court in Jhoja Singh v. Queen-Empress ILR (1896) Cal. 493. I see no reason to put a different interpretation on the words " an accused person " in Section 437. The District Magistrate was therefore competent to order further inquiry, and this application is not sustainable. I dismiss the application.