Ram Chandra Ghose vs The Bally Municipality

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.—The petitioner has been convicted under Clause 5, Section 217, Bengal Act III, 1884, of obstructing a road. This road is nothing more than a path, but it has been found that the public have a right of way over it. The contention before us is that the conviction is bad, because the road referred to in the clause above mentioned means only a road which is vested in the Municipality, and that this road was not so vested. In the Act a road is defined to be "any road, street * * or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, over which the public have a right of way." Section 30 enacts that all roads (not being private property and not being maintained by Government or at the public expense) shall vest in and belong to the Commissioners. We see no ground for holding that the word "road" in Clause 5 of Section 217 is limited to roads vested in the Municipality, and does not include all roads within the definition given in the Act. There is nothing in the context which would warrant us in putting the more narrow construction on it, and it is noticeable that in the first clause of that section the words "public road" are used.

The rule must therefore be discharged.