AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 37

Appendix 9

Note on Section 144(3) and the Expressions "Place" and "Frequenting".

The position as to the meaning of certain expressions in section 144(3) is, to some extent, unsatisfactory. While some of the decisions can be explained as based on the requirement of definiteness,1-2 yet there are two points on which there is uncertainty, as follows:-

(i) the first is, as to the exact meaning of the expression "particular place". The earlier Bombay decisions3-5 place a limited interpretation on this expression, and seem to rule out a wide area, such as a particular municipality."

In other Bombay case,6 it was pointed out, that the District Magistrate, when formulating his order under section 144, must show two things quite plainly, first of all, the thing which is prohibited, and secondly, the persons who are prohibited.

In a later Bombay case,7 the case-law was discussed, and it was emphasised that the expression "particular place" implies that the place to which the restriction applies should be sufficiently particularised. Divatia J. in that case stated:-

"It has not so much to do with the area of the place as with its description."

In a still later Bombay case,8 an order prohibiting certain acts in the public or private streets in a particular city was regarded as sufficiently definite.

These later Bombay cases, however, are not totally reconcilable with the earlier ones.

(ii) The second question under section 144(3) is, whether persons residing in an area can be said to "frequent or visit" it. The case-law on the subject was dealt in a full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court,9-10 which very clearly held that the act of "frequenting" includes the act of residing.

Nevertheless, some doubt remains on this point, because of the (i) earlier Bombay decision on the subject,11 (ii) the Calcutta cases12-13 which take a limited view, though they were not followed in later case,14 and (iii) a Madras case.15

1. Golam Mohamad, (1897) 2 CWN 422.

2. Qamar-ud-din (in re:), AIR 1935 Lah 679 (680) (Currie J.).

3. Bhagubhai v. Emp., AIR 1914 Bom 198(1).

4. Belvi v. Emp., AIR 1931 Bom 325 (326).

5. Moti Lal v. Emp., AIR 1931 Bom 513.

6. Emp. v. Ganesh Malvankar, ILR 55 Bom 322: AIR 1931 Bom 135 (138) (per Beaumont C.J.).

7. Vasant B. Khale v. Emp., ILR 59 Bom 27: AIR 1934 Bom 375 (378) (Reviews cases).

8. Sorab Batliwala v. Emp., AIR 1935 Bom 33 (34) (Beaumont C.J.).

9. Emp. v. Afaq Hussain, ILR 1941 All 186: AIR 1941 All 70 (72) (FB).

10. See also Abu Husain v. Emp., AIR 1940 Cal 358 (361) (Edgeley J.).

11. Bhaguhhai v. Emp., AIR 1914 Bom 198 (1) (Shah and Heaton JJ.).

12. Ashutosh Roy, 29 CWN 411: AIR 1925 Cal 625 (626) (DB).

13. Abdul Majid, 38 CWN 556: AIR 1934 Cal 393 (396) (DB).

14. Abu Hussain v. Emp., AIR 1940 Cal 358 (Edgeley J.).

15. Shrirama Murthy (in re:), AIR 1931 Mad 242.



Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections 1-176) Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys