Mohammed Ejaz Hussan Khan vs Emperor

James, J.—The petitioner has been fined Rs. 10 u/s 332, Criminal P.C. for failing to attend as an assessor in the Sessions Court of Muzaffarpur after he had been summoned. It appears that the petitioner had gone to live in Patna and consequently when the peon came to his village to serve the notice on him he was obliged to make the service in the manner prescribed by Section 71, Criminal P.C. The learned Sessions Judge considers that the assessor ought to have arranged that such notices, if received in his absence, should be accepted and communicated to him. But it appears that this was not a mere brief or temporary absence but that the petitioner was actually living in Patna and rarely visiting his home in Muzaffarpur. I consider that in such circumstances the petitioner should not be regarded as resident in Muzaffarpur District within the meaning of Section 319, Criminal P.C. The meaning of the term "residence" in the CPC was considered by the Bombay High Court in Mahomed Shuffli v. Laldin Abdula [1879] 3 Bom. 227 and Ramchandra Sakharam v. Keshab Durgaji [1881] 6 Bom. 100, and in the latter case it was held that a person who was absent for four months from his ordinary abode should be treated as nonresident. I do not consider that the petitioner in the present case should be regarded as residing in Muzaffarpur District during his prolonged absence at his house in Patna. The learned Sessions Judge has suggested that if he has ceased to reside in Muzaffarpur District he should obtain the removal of his name from the list of jurors and assessors. But the mere fact that his name is on that list does not render him liable to serve as an assessor unless he is liable u/s 319, Criminal P.C. A man may obviously reside during the year in more than one district and a person who in this way possesses more than one place of residence would, I consider, be ordinarily liable to serve as a juror in each of the districts in which he has his residence; but he would only be subject to that liability so long as he was residing in that district. There are, for instance, on the jury list of Patna many persons who reside for half the year at Ranchi. I do not consider that those parsons during their absence at Ranchi, would be regarded as residing in Patna District within the meaning of Section 319, though during the period of their residence in Patna District they may be liable to serve as jurors. I consider, therefore that the petitioner living more or less permanently at his house in Patna is not, while he is residing there, to be regarded as residing in Muzaffarpur District within the meaning of Section 319. He was not, therefore at that particular time liable u/s 319 to serve as a juror or assessor, and the order of the Sessions Judge u/s 332 is accordingly set aside. The amount of fine, if paid, may be refunded.