Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether omission to publish the notice under section 145(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code at or near the subject of dispute deprived the Magistrate of jurisdiction and invalidated the proceedings.
Analysis: The initial jurisdiction under section 145 depended on the statutory conditions as to dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and the Magistrate's satisfaction on that point. The publication requirement in section 145(3) was treated as part of the procedure for exercising that jurisdiction, not as a condition going to its existence. The Court distinguished between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction, holding that non-publication of the notice was an irregularity unless it caused material prejudice. As the parties had been served, appeared, contested the matter, and no prejudice to any party or other interested person was shown, interference under the Court's supervisory power was not warranted.
Conclusion: The omission to publish the notice did not deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction, and the proceedings were not liable to be set aside on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The Rule was discharged, and the challenged order under section 145 was sustained because the procedural omission was not treated as a jurisdictional nullity in the absence of prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi: Where jurisdiction under section 145 is otherwise validly acquired, failure to publish the notice required by section 145(3) is an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and not a jurisdictional defect, unless material prejudice is shown.