JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why his order, dated the 4th November 1907, convicting the Petitioner, Liakat Hossein, under sec. 188, I. P. C., and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment, should not be set aside, on the ground that he bad no jurisdiction to deal with a case of disobedience of his own order, in contravention of the terms of sec. 487, C. Cr. P. The facts of the case are these : The Petitioner has been tried, under sec 188, I. P. C, for disobedience of the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, issued under sec. 144, C. Cr. P., directing him to refrain from leading, or taking part in, processions along the public streets of Calcutta and from holding and addressing meetings in Calcutta. This order was Issued by Mr. Kingsford, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and subsequently the Petitioner was charged with having disobeyed it, and, after being tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. A rule was asked for by Mr. Chaudhuri on the following grounds, namely, first, that the order, under sec. 144, C. Cr. P., was passed ex parte, and did not purport to have been passed in an emergency; secondly, that the Petitioner was not allowed to show cause against the order; and, thirdly, that there is nothing on the record to prove that the disobedience of the order tended to cause a riot, or an affray, or danger to human safety. 3. We heard Mr. Chaudhuri in support of these pleas and considered the matter. But we did not think these pleas sufficient to justify us in issuing a rule. It is not necessary for us to give our reasons for rejecting the three pleas cited above, because we come to the conclusion, after examining the proceedings, that a rule should be issued on another ground, namely, that the order under sec. 144, C. Cr. P., having been issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, he had no jurisdiction to try the Petitioner for disobedience of it, and that, consequently, his order, being in contravention of sec. 487, C. Cr. P., is without jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Sinha appears before us to-day on behalf of the Crown and states that he has no cause to show against the rule being made absolute. 487, C. Cr. P., is without jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Sinha appears before us to-day on behalf of the Crown and states that he has no cause to show against the rule being made absolute. But he prays that an order may be passed by us for the retrial of the Petitioner. 5. We think that the learned Standing Counsel has taken a proper view of the matter. It seems impossible to resist the conclusion that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had, under sec. 487, C. Cr. P., no authority to try a case of disobedience of his own order, because sec. 487 expressly lays down that no Magistrate can try a case of disobedience of his own order. 6. It appears to us that the terms of sec. 487, C. Or. P., as contained in the Code of 1898, are wide enough to include Presidency Magistrates. The word in the section is " magistrate"; and that must include a Presidency Magistrate, unless the definition of Magistrate excludes Presidency Magistrate, which, it appears to us, it does not. No doubt, in the Code of 1882, the provisions of sec. 487 were different, and 487 of that Code gave express power to Presidency Magistrates to try cases of disobedience of their own order. That section was modified in the Code of 1898, and no such power is given in sec. 487 of the Code now in force. For these reasons we think that Mr. Kingsford's order Is without jurisdiction. 7. We therefore make the rule absolute and direct that the Petitioner be set at liberty. Mr. Sinha asks us to order the retrial of the accused. We do not, however, think it is ordinarily our duty to order the retrial of any person. But we will observe that the order we now pass setting aside the conviction and sentence is no obstacle, in our opinion, to the accused being retried, if the prosecution thinks it advisable to retry him.