AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hill and Stevens, JJ.—In this case a complaint was made to an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta u/s 1 of Act XIII of 1859, in respect of a contract which was made in Calcutta, but the breach of which is said to have taken place in a portion of the N.-W. P., to which the Magistrate states the provisions of the Act had not been extended. The Magistrate considered that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, inasmuch as the breach of the contract had taken place beyond the local jurisdiction of his Court, at a place outside the limits of the Town of Calcutta. The complainant has applied for a revision of the order made by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate dismissing his complaint. Section 1 of Act XIII of 1859 provides that in the case of a breach of contract to which that Act applies a complaint may be made to a Magistrate of Police. We think that the terms of the section do not imply that the complaint is to be made to the Magistrate of Police in the place where the breach has taken place, and, moreover, Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in every enactment passed before that Act came into force, the expression "Magistrate of Police" shall be deemed to mean Presidency Magistrate. We, therefore, think that the Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
We therefore set aside his order of the 7th of September 1897 dismissing the complaint, and direct that he do proceed co dispose of the complaint which he may lawfully take cognizance of in accordance with law.