Ramasami Chetty vs Muthuvelu Mudali and Others

Krishnan, J.—This is a revision petition by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrate 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 not any in law, mere because complainant invoked its jurisdiction.

On the question of jurisdiction it is argued that tin 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 (2) as an offence against the conservancy

clauses of a Police Act punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. Though Section 8 is in the Towns

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-Empress v. Oolaganadan ILR (1890) Mad. 142, that all the clauses in Section 48 of the Police Act fell within the term ""conservancy

clause."" Section 3(12) 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 of 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.