1 Benoa Native Statig. } $1
2 CHAPTER MI.—THE TRIBUTARY MAHALS OF CHUTIA NAGPUR—coneluded.
3 Supplementary Notes.
4 I.— Delegation of functions with respect to suits against the Chiefs cf the Tributary
5 Mahals of Chutia Nagpur.—By Notification No. 1369-I., dated the 29th March, 1889, the
6 Local Government of Bengal and its Secretaries have been authorised, under section 433, sub-
7 section (4), of the Code of Civil Procedure, to exercise, with respect to these Chiefs, the func-
8 tions assigned by sub-sections (7), (2) and (3) of the said section to the Governor General in
9 Council and a Secretary to the Government of India, respectively. (See Gazette of Indua,
10 1889, Pt. I, p. 187.)
11 Il.—Regulation XIII of 1838 and Act XX of 1854.—It may be noted that neither
12 Bengal Regulation XIII of 1888 [(Zilae of Ramgarh, Jungle Mahals and Midnapore} (repealed
13 by Act XII of 1876), nor Act XX of 1854, which amended that Regulation, covered these tri-
14 butary mahals, So that in this case we have not the legal anomaly, which exists in the case
15 of the Orissa Tributary Mahals, of legislation for territory declared to be beyond the limits
16 of British India (sce page 26, supra).
17 11I.—Railway lands.—Jurisdiction over the lands occupied by the Bengal-Nagpur Rail-
18 way in the eastern parts of the Mahal of Gangpur and in the Mahals of Seraikilla and Khurso-
19 wan haa been acquired by the British Government. (See Chapter IV, st hae pp. 382 to 36.)
20 Jurisdiction has also been acquired over the lands occupied by this Railway in the Hingir
21 Taluq of the Mahal of Gangpur and in the western parts of that mahal between the Sambal-
22 pur Road and Govindpur Railway Station, see Notification No, 2138-I., dated the 21st May
23 1891, in Gazette of India, 1891, Pt. I, p. 288,
24 IV.—High Court decision (referred to supra, p. 29),
25 « HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT FORT WILLIAM IN BENGAL,
26 The 15th September, 1889.
27 ‘© CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
28 6 Present: °
29 © The Hon'ble W. F. McDongxt, V.C. : Two of the Judges
30 = _ J. O’Kinzacy, ‘ : of the Court,
31 Mata KHAsiA ° ; « Appellant,
32 ‘‘ This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed by Mr. Hewitt, Commissioner of
33 Chutia Nagpur, as Political Agent of the Chutié Nagpur Tributary Mahals. The offence was
34 committed in Gangpur, a tributary mahal attached to that division. The prisoner appears
35 to have been tried in Lohardugga. It appears that the successive Political officers have, since
36 1817, exercised a similar jurisdiction, and that they were not subject either to the appellate or
37 revisional jurisdiction of the Sudder Nizamut Adawlut. The only question now before us is
38 whether we have any power to interfere with the decision of that officer. In criminal appeal
39 No. 166 of 1882,(") a Division Bench of this Court decided that, in cases like the present case,
40 the High Court had not, either under the Letters Patent or the Procedure Codes, any power to
41 interfere with the decisions of officers other than Sessions Judges and other specified officers.
42 In this opinion we concur, and the appeal must be rejected on the ground that we have no power
43 to interfere. Whether the jurisdiction has been exercised in accordance with law or not is not
44 a question now before this Court.
45 W. F. McDonztt,
46 J, O’KinEAty,”
47 (*) See I, L. K. 9, Cal., p. 288,