Ramasami Chettiar vs Muthuvelu Mudali and Others

Krishnan, J.—This is a revision petition by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrates of South Arcot.

The ground taken is that the Bench had no jurisdiction to try an offence u/s 3, Clause (12) of Act III of 1889. Curiously enough, the objection is

taken by the complainant himself who invoked the jurisdiction of the Bench. This does not, however, prevent him from doing so in revision, for a

Court cannot get jurisdiction if it had none under the law merely because complainant invoked its jurisdiction.

On the question of jurisdiction it is argued that the Bench had jurisdiction only to try offences under Sections 5, 6 and 7 named in Rule 1, Clause

(5)(e) of the Rules framed by the Government for the guidance of Bench Magistrates u/s 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer to this

argument is that Section 3 is not mentioned in Clause (5)(e) because it falls under the earlier clause, Clause (2), as an offence against the

conservancy clauses of the Police Act punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. Though Section 3 is in

the Town Nuisances Act, Section 11 of that Act directs that the section is to be read with and forms part of Act XXIV of 1859, the Police Act. It

was ruled in Queen-Emperess v. Oolganadan 13 M. 142 : 1 Weir 910 : 2 Weir 327 : 4 Ind. Dec. 811 that all the clauses in Section 48 of the

Police Act fell within the term ""conservancy clause."" Section 3 of the Towns Nuisances Act is practically the same as Clause (6) and part of Clause

(7) of Section 48 of the Police Act. That case is, therefore, an authority for holding that an offence u/s 3(12) of the Act III 1889 falls within Clause

(2) Rule 1, of the Rules for the guidance of Bench Magistrates and the Magistrates had jurisdiction to dispose of the present case.

The petition fails and is dismissed.