This article has been written by Pankhuri Anand, a student of Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan. This article discusses all the provisions related to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Public order and peace is something that should prevail in every civilised society. Peace and public order are essential for every civilised society and it is the duty of the state to maintain the Public Order and Tranquility. Section 31 of the Police Act,1861 defines the term “maintenance of public order” which requires that the order should be maintained on public places and should not be obstructed by assemblies and processions.
Several provisions have been laid down in the Indian Penal Code, The Code of Criminal Procedure and The Police Act for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility has been dealt with specifically under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The public order is disturbed mainly due to the following reasons.
- Unlawful Assembly
- Public Nuisance and Urgent Cases of Nuisance
- Disputes related to immovable properties
The unlawful assembly has been criminalised under the law to preserve public peace and security. The definition and punishments for unlawful assembly have been laid down under the Indian Penal Code which several other provisions have been laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure as procedures to be followed in matters of unlawful assemblies.
Provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 141: Definition of Unlawful Assembly
Section 141 of IPC defines the term “Unlawful Assembly”.
For an assembly to be an unlawful assembly, these are the following requisites as laid down by section 141.
Assembly of Five or More Persons
There must be five or more than five persons having a common object. If an assembly lacks the number of requisite members as less than 5, then it can not be considered as an unlawful assembly.
In a landmark case of Amar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, seven people were accused under section 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. out of seven accused, three of the accused were acquitted due to which the conviction of four members was not sustained as the members of where not five or more to be charged with the offence of being a member of unlawful assembly. Total number of members
While considering any assembly of five or more persons to be an unlawful assembly, one of the major essentials is the presence of a common object which has been discussed under section 149 of the IPC.
All the members of the unlawful assembly should be involved in the unlawful assembly with a common object. There must be an existence of a common object and the members should have knowledge of it and agree to it.
In the leading case of Iqbal and Anr. V. State of U.P, it was held by the Supreme Court that in the matter of unlawful assembly, the common object must be present as one of the five essentials mentioned under section 141 of IPC. Common object can be gathered in such matters by the nature of the assembly, arms used, the behaviour of that assembly either during the act or prior to the act.
For being an unlawful assembly, the assembly of five or more than five members having a common object should qualify at least one of the five acts mentioned under section 141 of the Indian Penal Code:
The use of criminal force is one of the major essentials for an assembly to be held as an unlawful assembly. The term “Criminal force” has been defined under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code.
The members of the assembly should overawe by criminal force or use criminal force. When a person is forced to do something which otherwise he won’t do or, forced not to do something he would otherwise do, it is said to be overawed. The use of criminal force by the assembly of five or more persons to create fear in the minds of the public to do a certain act, or abstain from doing certain acts will render it an unlawful assembly.
2. Resists execution of law or legal process
Causing resistance in the process of execution of law or in carrying out any legal process is considered to be illegal. If the assembly resists the execution of law or legal process then it will be considered an unlawful assembly. If the object of the assembly is a legal one, then it cannot be considered as illegal.
3. Commit any “mischief” or “criminal trespass” or other offences
If the members of the assembly are involved in any mischief as defined under section 425 of the Indian Penal Code or, in criminal trespass as defined under section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, or any other offences, such assembly is deemed to be an unlawful one. Other offences include any act or omission made punishable under the Indian Penal Code or under any local laws.
4. Taking or obtaining possession of any property by criminal force
No one should be abstained from using his property or possessing his property because of criminal force. If the assembly uses criminal force or shows criminal force to any person in order to take possession of any property, or deprives any person of using their right to way or water, or any other incorporeal rights which he possesses or enjoys, it will render that assembly as an unlawful one.
5. Compel any person
The assembly if compels any person by the use of criminal force, or showing criminal force to do what he is not legally bound to do, or omission of what he is legally bound to do, it will render the assembly as an unlawful one.
As given in the explanation of section 141, the assembly which is a lawful one when it assembled, may later become an unlawful assembly.
We all have right to Assemble Peacefully guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(b) but when the assembly of people becomes a threat to Public Order and Tranquility then it becomes an unlawful assembly.
Section 142: Being a member of unlawful assembly
Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code defines a member of an unlawful assembly. Whoever, having the knowledge and being aware of the facts which tend any assembly as an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues being a member in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
In an unlawful assembly if any person joins intentionally knowing that the assembly is unlawful, then such member will be considered as a member of unlawful assembly. And, If any person is a member of unlawful assembly he is deemed to be punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code.
Even if a person is a member of the assembly when it’s a lawful assembly and later when the assembly becomes an unlawful assembly, continues in it, then he shall be considered to be a member of unlawful assembly.
Section 143: Punishment
Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code states the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
Being a member of the unlawful assembly is punishable with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term extended upto six months.
Whoever is found to be guilty of being a member of the unlawful assembly is bound to be punished under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code.
Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Maintaining public order and tranquillity is one of the major objectives of every government. Chapter-X of the Cr.P.C being the second branch of the preventive measures of the Code deals the preventive provisions for maintenance of public order and tranquillity.,
Chapter X of the Cr.P.C, titled as “Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity” has provisions to lay down the mechanism of the procedure to maintain public order and peace. The chapter consists of an overall 21 sections which deal with the procedural steps to be followed and taken in the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. Section 129 to Section 132 deals with the provisions for unlawful assemblies.
Section 129: Use of civil force for dispersal of an assembly
According to section 129 of Cr.P.C, the order to disperse any assembly that is an unlawful one and likely to cause disturbance to the public peace may be issued by-
- Any executive Magistrate
- Officer in charge of a police station or,
- Any police officer who is a sub-inspector or above the rank of sub-inspector in the absence of such officer in charge
When an order is passed for dispersal, it shall be the duty of the members of such assembly to disperse accordingly.
After an order for dispersal is issued and such assembly disobeys the order and do not disperse, or, even if not so commanded, the assembly shows determination of not to disperse,then any Executive Magistrate or Officers as empowered under subsection (1) of section 129 may use force in order to disperse such unlawful assembly.
If necessary, even if any male person is not an officer or member of armed force but acting as such, may arrest or confine the members of such unlawful assembly and then they may be punished by law.
The authority to disperse an unlawful assembly has been granted to the Executive Magistrate or the officer-in-charge of a police station. In case of absence of the officer-in-charge, a command can also be given by a police officer, not below the rank of sub-inspector.
In the landmark judgement of State of Karnataka v. B. Padmanabha Behya, it was held by the Supreme Court that when there is an event of firing by the police without lawful orders of authority, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation by the State.
Under article 19(1)(b) of the constitution of India every individual has a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and without arms but reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of integrity and public order which are to be regulated by the procedures laid down in Chapter X of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 130: Use of armed forces to disperse the assembly
Section 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play when the unlawful assembly cannot be dispersed otherwise.
- When an unlawful assembly cannot be dispersed by any other means, and when it is necessary for the public security that such assembly should be dispersed, it can be dispersed with the help of armed forces by the order of Executive Magistrate of the highest rank present.
- Such Magistrate may order any officer in command of any group of persons belonging to the armed forces to take the help of armed forces under his command to disperse the assembly. He is also empowered to arrest or confine the members of such assembly in order to maintain the public security in accordance with the orders of the Magistrate. He has also power to have them punished according to law.
- The requisitions laid down under this section shall be obeyed by every officer of the armed forces empowered under this section in such manner as he thinks fit. While following the orders and taking any step to maintain public security, he shall use as little force with the objective of maintenance of public order.
Section 130 entitles the lawful authority to use force to disperse the unlawful assembly when it is needed in the interest of maintaining public security.
Section 131: Powers of certain armed force officers to disperse the assembly
To maintain public order and tranquillity, certain armed force officers are also empowered to disperse assembly according to the procedure laid down under Section 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows.
When the public security is manifestly endangered by an unlawful assembly and no communication can be made with the Executive Magistrate, in such cases certain armed force officers are empowered to disperse assembly with the help of the armed forces under his command, and may arrest and confine any persons forming part of it.
While such armed force officer is acting under this section and it becomes practicable for him to communicate with an Executive Magistrate, he shall do so. After communication is established, he shall henceforth obey the instructions of the Magistrate regarding whether he shall or shall not continue such action.
This section has been enacted in order to lay down provisions to maintain public security in the case when no executive magistrate can be reached so that the public order and tranquillity can be maintained more efficiently.
Section 132: Protection against prosecution for acts done under proceeding sections
Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives protection to the prosecution for any act done under section 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except with the sanction of State or Central Government.
Section 132 states the Protection against prosecution for acts done under preceding sections.
- No prosecution shall be instituted in any Criminal Court against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 129, section 130 or section 131, except-
(a) when such person is an officer or member of armed forces than with the sanction of the Central Government;
(b) in any other cases sanction of the State, the government is required.
- (a) The acts done by an executive magistrate or police officer under any of the said sections should be with good faith.
(b) any person doing any act in good faith in compliance with requisitions laid down under section 129 or section 130.
(c) when an officer of the armed forces is acting in good faith under section 131.
(d) Any member of the armed forces shall not be deemed to have committed an offence when he has done any act in obedience to any order issued and which he was bound to obey such order.
(3) In this section and in the preceding sections of this Chapter,-
(a) the expression” armed forces” in this section refers to the military, naval and air forces,
(b)the term ” officer“, used under this section is in relation to the armed forces. Any person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as an officer of the armed forces is considered as an officer. It also includes a junior commissioned officer, a warrant officer, a petty officer, a non- commissioned officer and a non- gazetted officer;
(c) a person in the armed forces other than an officer is considered as a “member” referred under this section.
Essentials for benefit under Section 132
For having the benefit granted under section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the officer has to fulfil certain essential conditions:
- There was an unlawful assembly.
- That assembly was commanded to be dispersed.
- The assembly did not disperse on the command to disperse.
- Or, if no command was given the conduct of assembly seemed determined not to disperse.
In the above circumstances, the officer had to use force to disperse the assembly.
The term public nuisance has been defined under section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. Though it is not so dangerous and urgent as unlawful assembly, a public nuisance is a threat to public peace and security.
Provisions under Cr.P.C
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with provisions to deal with the matters of public nuisance. Section 133,134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 143 deals with the procedures to be followed in matters related to public nuisance and the Urgent cases Nuisance or apprehended danger has been dealt under section 144.
Section 133: Conditional Order for removal of nuisance
According to Section 133, a conditional order can be passed by a District Magistrate, Sub- Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate empowered by the state for removal of public nuisance.
There are six categories of public nuisance which can be resolved under this section:
- The unlawful obstruction or nuisance to any public place or to anyway, river or channel lawfully used by the public.
- The conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods or merchandise which is/can be injurious to health or physical comfort of the community.
- The construction of any building, or disposal of any substance, as it is likely to occasion or explosion.
- A building, tent, or structure, or a tree as it is likely to cause damage or injury to a person.
- An unfenced tank, well or excavation near a public place or way.
- A dangerous animal that requires confinement, destruction or disposal.
When a proceeding is instituted under section 133 of Cr.P.C, a civil suit can continue parallel without any bar as held in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.
A conditional order under section 133 of Cr.P.C is mandatory and without it, no final order can be made. The conditional order must specify the time period in which the nuisance or obstruction is to be removed or resolved. The order duly made under this section by a magistrate shall not be called in question in any civil court.
The magistrate can make a conditional order against the following person.
- The person causing obstruction or nuisance.
- The person carrying on such trade or occupation which is likely to cause a public nuisance.
- The person keeping any such goods or merchandise which can be injurious to health or physical comfort of the community.
- The person who owns possesses or controls such as building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation.
- The person owning or possessing such tree or animal which is dangerous and can cause injury or damage.
The conditional order can be passed under section 133.
- To remove the obstruction or nuisance.
- To abstain from carrying on such trade or occupation.
- To remove such goods or merchandise causing nuisance or, to regulate or keep in the manner as directed by the magistrate.
- To remove, repair or support such building, tent, structure or tree.
- To fence such tank, excavation or well.
- To destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal as manner prescribed in the order.
Section 134: Service or notification of order
According to section 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order shall be served on the person against whom it is made in the manner which is followed for service of summons. If such an order cannot be served, it shall be notified by proclamation or published in such manner as the state government directs.
Section 135: Person to whom the order is addressed to obey or show cause
According to section 135, When an order is served against a person, he is left with two alternatives. He should have to either-
- Carry out the order by performing in accordance with the directions given in the order.
- he may show cause against the order issued.
These alternatives are mutually exclusive. A reasonable opportunity should be given to the party to show cause under section 135(b).
Section 136: Consequences of failing to obey such order
According to section 136, If the person against whom the order is issued fails to perform such act or appear and show cause, he is liable to the penalty prescribed under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant.
In the case of Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd. v. S.D.M. & R.D. Officer, Sangareddy, the court held that Sub- Divisional Magistrate is empowered to pass an order under section 136 of the code to close factory causing pollution as it failed to produce appreciation certificate from the Pollution Control Board.
Section 137: Denial of Public Right
Section 137 lays down the procedure where public rights are denied. Procedures laid down in section 137 are mandatory before taking recourse on the procedure laid down under section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The requirements of this section are as follows.
- Firstly, that the party against whom a provisional order is made shall appear before the magistrate, and deny the existence of the public right in question.
- Secondly, the party shall produce some reliable evidence.
- Thirdly, such evidence shall be legal evidence and shall support his argument of denial of public right in question.
If all these above-said conditions are satisfied, the Magistrate’s Jurisdiction to continue the proceeding is ceased.
As held in the case of Mani Mathai v. Uthuppu, on denial of public right, the magistrate shall conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Section 138: Procedure when he appears to show cause
According to section 138, the magistrate shall take evidence as in summon cases when the person against the order is passed under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears and show cause against the order.
There can be two consequences:
- If the magistrate is satisfied, the order shall be made absolute with or without modification if the order either originally or subject to modification as required, is reasonable and proper
- If the magistrate is not satisfied, further proceedings shall not be taken in the case.
The proceeding cannot be dropped without taking evidence. It is the duty of the Magistrate to take evidence as the ground of order he has to make. As held in the case of M.L. Gopalaswamy v. State of Mysore, it would be illegal to make absolute a conditional order without recording evidence and this requirement is mandatory.
Section 139 of the Cr.P.C empowers the magistrate to direct local investigation for the purpose of an inquiry under section 137 and 138. The power of magistrate regarding procedure and direction investigation has been given under section 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 141: Procedure to be followed when order is made absolute and consequences of disobedience
According to section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure has been laid down to be followed on order made absolute and consequences of disobedience of order made under section 136 or section 138. The magistrate shall issue a notice when an order is made absolute directing him to perform order within the time fixed in the notice.
In case if the act is not performed, the magistrate can recover the cost of performing by the sale of building, goods, other immovable or any movable property. But the powers granted under this section should be used in good faith.
Section 142: Power to issue an injunction
Where an order is made by a magistrate under section 133 where immediate measure is required to prevent any imminent danger or serious injury, an injunction can be issued against whom the order is made under section 142 of Cr.P.C. The magistrate may himself use or cause to be used such means to prevent such danger or injury if there is default on the part of such person. The order issued under this section such be made with good faith.
A District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate has been empowered under Section 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prohibit repetition or continuance of public nuisance.
Section 144: Order to be issued in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger
Section 144 comes into play when there are urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
Order can be issued under this section by the following.
- District Magistrate
- A Sub-divisional Magistrate
- Any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf.
When there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section, an immediate and speedy remedy is required for maintenance of public order, directions can be issued by the magistrate by a written order directing any person to abstain from certain acts or issue an order with respect to certain property which is in his possession.
Order under this section can be passed and directions can be issued to prevent:
- Obstruction, damage or injury;
- Danger to human life, health or safety;
- Disturbance of the public tranquillity
Ex-parte order under section 144(2)
If there is a matter of emergency or where delay in the matter in serving notice can lead to grave injury or damage, the order can be passed ex-parte.
Nature of orders passed under section 144
The order passed under section 144 is temporary in nature. As held in the case of M.S. Associates v. Police Commissioner, it was held that the order passed under section 144 is of a temporary character. It does not acquire a permanent or semi-permanent character merely on being repeatedly issued.
The order passed under section 144 is a restrictive order and not a mandatory order directing a person to do some act. In the case of Kushumkumaree Debee V. Hemalinee Debee, it was held that the magistrate is only entitled to issue restrictive order, preventing a person from doing some act. He cannot make a mandatory order and issue directions to do some act. This section does not empower magistrate to make a positive order.
According to section 144(3), an order issued under section shall remain in force for a period not exceeding more than two months.
But, in exceptional cases where the state government considers it necessary in order to maintain public order and for preventing danger to human life, health and safety, or to prevent riot or affray, the order issued by magistrate can be extended for a further period of six months.
As an example of section 144, one of the most famous instances which you all have come across was the gathering at Ramlila Maidan when section 144 was imposed at Ramlila Ground, New Delhi and Baba Ramdev was arrested.
Section 144A: Power of magistrate to prohibit carrying arms in procession etc.
According to section 144A, for the maintenance of public peace and security, the District Magistrate may prohibit carrying of arms in procession, or organising or practising any mass drill with or without arms within his local jurisdiction by means of public notice or order.
The notice or order issued under this section can either be issued against a particular person or a group of people belonging to a particular community association or organisation.and the order or notice issued under this section shall be enforced for a period not exceeding three months. But, if the State Government considers necessary for the maintenance of public peace and security, the period may be extended for not more than six months.
Disputes related to immovable property
Section 145 to 148 of the Criminal Procedure deals with the procedures when there is likely to be a breach of peace and public order due to a dispute relating to immovable property.
Section 145: Breach of peace by a dispute regarding land and water
Section 145 basically deals with disputes regarding possession. The main objective of this section is to prevent any breach of public peace by maintaining possession of one or the other party which the court finds has the immediate possession before dispute unless the actual rights are decided by the civil court.
Under this section, when a report of police officer or information of dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace concerning land, water or boundaries is brought before the Executive Magistrate and he is satisfied by such report or information, he shall make a written order requiring the parties to attend his court either in person.
According to subclause (3) of this section, the service of order is to be done as the procedure laid down for the service of summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
There must be an apprehension of breach of peace and public order for the magistrate to pass preliminary order. As held in the case of Ram Pal Singh v. Bhagelu, a magistrate is not bound to give preliminary order if he/she finds that there is no apprehension of breach of peace.
Before the Magistrate passes the final order, both parties should be allowed to put forward their evidence before the court. As held in the case of N. A. Ansary v. Jackiriya, the opportunity to both parties for producing evidence before the court is mandatory and if the opportunity is not given, the proceeding is been vitiated.
The right under section is not merely procedural rights but certain substantive rights as well and as held in the case of Dhanbar Ali v. Haripada Saha, the procedures laid down under this section have an integral connection with the enjoyment of the immovable property and it should not be dealt lightly by the trial court.
Section 146: Attachment and appointment of a receiver
After making an order under section 145, the magistrate can anytime order under section 146 for attachment of the subject in dispute and appointment of a receiver if:
- The Magistrate considers the case to be of an emergency
- he decides that none of the parties was in the possession as referred under section 145
- He is unable to satisfy himself that which of either party was in possession of the property in dispute.
When there is no longer felt that there are chances of breach of peace, the order of attachment can be withdrawn at any time by the magistrate.
When a receiver is subsequently appointed by the civil court for the subject in dispute:
- The Magistrate shall issue an order against the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession to the receiver appointed by the civil court.
- Thereafter, discharge the receiver appointed by him.
- Make any other order as may be just.
In the case of Ranjit Singh v. Moti Lal Katiyar, it was held that the power should be exercised by the magistrate with due care and diligence and it should be exercised in limited cases when immediate action is required to maintain peace and prevent any breach of public order.
Before an order of attachment is passed, serving notice to the opposite party is not mandatory as an opportunity of hearing needs to be exempted in emergency cases as held in Krishna Chandra Patel v. Khela Kuri Patel.
Section 147: Dispute regarding the right of use land or water
Section 147 of Cr.P.C acts as an amplification of section 145. This section empowers the executive magistrate to issue a written order against the parties to appear before the court either in person or by pleader, if he is satisfied upon the report submitted by the police or information of dispute which likely causes a breach of peace due to a dispute regarding land or water within the local jurisdiction. The right claimed against the matter in dispute can be an easement or otherwise.
The magistrate hears both parties in accordance of evidence produced by both parties and decide the right of parties exists or not applying provisions of section 145 in the inquiry. Order can be issued by the magistrate prohibiting any interference regarding the exercise of such rights.
In the case of Gulam Farid Mian v. Ahmad Bhathihara, it was held that for this section the person may not be referring the right of easement in the strict sense but may have acquired right of the user by any other mode. The right should be distinguished from the use of land as owner and in a lawful way.
Section 148- Provisions for local inquiry
According to section 148, when under section 145, 146 or 147, the necessity to conduct an inquiry is felt, a District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may depute any subordinate magistrate to conduct an inquiry by issuing a written instruction which may be necessary for his guidance.
After conducting an enquiry, the report is submitted by the deputed magistrate and it may be read as evidence in the case. For any cost incurred by any party in proceeding under section 145, 146 or 147, the magistrate can issue direction of payment by the party. The order can be passed to make payment either in part and proportion. The expenses with respect to witness and pleaders’ fees may also be included in the expenses as the court feels reasonable.
As held in the case of Lakhan Singh v. Kishun Singh, the principle of natural justice should be followed and the party should be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order is passed against it.
Public Peace and security are necessary for every civilised society and it is the duty of State to maintain public order and tranquillity. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down the provisions to maintain public order and tranquillity.
Indian Penal Code states provisions and punishment for acts which can be a threat to public peace and security while the Code of Criminal Procedure states the procedure which needs to be followed by the state to maintain the public peace and tranquillity. The procedures under chapter X of Cr.P.C are to be taken in urgent matters which are a threat to public peace and security. Either the threat to public order is by an unlawful assembly, a public nuisance or due to a dispute related to immovable property, Chapter X of Cr.P.C contains procedures to deal with such instances.
- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 16th Edition,2002
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Rakesh Kumar v. the State of U.P[(1994) Cr. LJ All 289 ].
- Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd. v. S.D.M. & R.D. Officer, Sangareddy, [1987 Cr LJ 2071 (A.P)]
- Mani Mathai v. Uthuppu, [(1985) 2 Crimes 370 Ker.]
- M.L. Gopalaswamy v. State of Mysore [1974 Cr LJ 1119 (Kant)]
- M.S. Associates v. Police Commissioner, [(1997) Cr. LJ 377 (381)Del.]
- Kushumkumaree Debee V. Hemalinee Debee [(1933) 63 Cal 11]
- Ram Pal Singh v. Bhagelu [(1977) CrLJ 210]
- N. A. Ansary v. Jackiriya [1991 Cr.LJ 476 Mad]
- Ranjit Singh v. Moti Lal Katiyar [1988 (1) crimes 102 All.]
- Krishna Chandra Patel v. Khela Kuri Patel [1996 CrLJ 3918 Ori.].
- Gulam Farid Mian v. Ahmad Bhathihara [1978 CrLJ 1323]
- Lakhan Singh v. Kishun Singh [1970 CrLJ 1571]