'ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY, FOR THE YEAR 1862-63’ [‎58r] (111/266)

APPENDIX TO JUDICIAL REPORT.
(14) A Bill to entrust Landholders with the charge of the Police with in their
respective Lands.
It is provided in Section 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that nothing in
that Act (XXV. of 1861) shall be held to alter or affect the jurisdiction, duties, or pro
cedure of Landholders specially empowered according to Law in the Presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. of
Bombay. But notwithstanding this proviso it was brought to the notice of Government
by the Court of Sudder Adawlut that Regulation XV. a.d. 1827, under which the
Landholders exercise jurisdiction, is repealed by Act XVII. of 1862. It became, there
fore, a question whether the Landholders should be deprived of their Sunnuds and the
powers which were secured to them in 1861, and they be reduced to the status of simple
Ryots; or whether their powers should be revived, with such modifications as would
adapt their powers and procedure more to the spirit of the present Code.
It was determined to adopt the latter course, and with that view the accompanying
Bill has been drawn out in modification of the provisions of Regulation XV. a.d. 1827.
This Bill is still under the consideration of the Council of the Governor of Bombay.
(15) A Bill to Amend Act XVIII. of 1862, so far as regards Prisons and Jails.
In a letter dated 12th May 1862, the attention of the Judges of Her Majesty’s
Supreme Court was called to a Bill then before the Council of the Governoi General
“ to repeal Act XVI. of 1852 in those parts of British India in which the Indian Penal
Code is in force, and to re-enact some of the provisions thereof with amendments; and
further to improve the administration ^pf Criminal Justice in Her Majesty s Supreme
Court of Judicature,” and they were requested to favour Government with such remaiks
or suggestions as they might desire to offer on the subject.
In reply to the above reference the Judges remarked as follows
2nd. “ The Bill became law on the 1st May 1862, so far as regards the Supreme
Court at Calcutta.”
3rd. “ We see no objection to Act XVIII. of 1862 being allowed to take
effect here in accordance with its preamble as a temporary measure, provided
that Bombay be relieved, as speedily as practicable, by Legislative enactment
from the operation of Sections 47, 48, and 53, which fetter the discretion heretofore
exercised by Judges (upon sanitary or other sufficient reasons) in selecting or
altering the one place of imprisonment or the other, in Bombay, that in which
a sentence of hard labour or the intermediate custody of Penal convicts should
be carried out.”
4th. “ We would also suggest that those Sections may be constructed to
take away pro tanto the power now possessed by the Governor in Council of
transferring prisoners from an overcrowded Jail to any other in the Presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. .
5th. “ We think that the Legislature should declare in what offences peremp
tory challenge should be allowed. We presume that it was not intended to
abrogate within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts this Common Law and
ancient statutable right of the subject.”
6th. “ Heretofore the right to such challenge was attached to a class of
offenders designated as “ Felony,” but the Penal Code does not recognise any
offence by that designation, nor does it express any equivalent foi it.
11