Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1896 (ALL)

Jijo C. George v. State Of U. P.

2022-12-01

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1 Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, .learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Allahabad, in Case -State vs. Jijo C. George arising out of the First Information Report registered at Case Crime No.0070 of 2022, under Sections 376, 328, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Mutthiganj, District-Praygraj and the operation and effect of the order impugned dated 21.10.2022 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad, in C.N.R. No. UPAD01-013127-2022, whereby he allowed the application of the Investigating Officer concerned to proceed with blood test / DNA test of the applicant during investigation. 3. The applicant-Jijo C. George-feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid direction/order of the Magistrate has approached this Court invoking inherent powers of this Court in this matter wherein investigation is in progress and the applicant has been directed for undergoing DNA test. 4. In this case, a peep into facts of the case proceeds on line that an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (opposite party no.2) that on 21.05.2022 referring to some incident that allegedly occurred on 05.12.2019 and onwards. The description in the first information report proceeds on to claim that the informant/prosecutrix was engaged in teaching profession at Ewing Christian College, Prayagraj. She was in contact with the present applicant-Jijo C. George and (also in teaching profession in ECC), he taking advantage of the situation invited her to a tea party at 11:00 a.m. on 05.12.2019 at his campus residence in the Ewing Christian College, where both the applicant and the respondent no.4 were working as Assistant Professors. It is a case of the prosecutrix that she went to the applicant's house and took tea but she felt giddy and became unconscious on account of some noxious substance mixed in the tea and administered upon her. When she became unconscious, the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her. It is a case of the prosecutrix that she went to the applicant's house and took tea but she felt giddy and became unconscious on account of some noxious substance mixed in the tea and administered upon her. When she became unconscious, the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself in critical position on bed and realized that her modesty was outraged, while she asked the applicant as to why he deceitfully invited her, he threatened and said to her that he has made a video clip of the incident and would inform about it to her husband and viral it in case any protest is raised. Due to which the prosecutrix became apprehensive and the applicant continued to blackmail her and continued to commit rape upon her at different places due to which she became pregnant. 5. As the F.I.R. proceeds further it divulges various details of subsequent events that led to the lodging of this first information report. 6. Background of the case may be looked into for proper appreciation of the case wherein offence of rape is allegedly committed by the applicant. In this case, the informant is 37 years of age, is presently posted as Assistant Professor in the department of English in Ewing Christian College, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ECC), whereas the applicant presently 32 years of age, was stated to be 28 years of age at the time of the incident (05.12.2019), was also posted as Assistant Professor in the same department of ECC, Prayagraj. it is claimed that no medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted in this case. It is case of the prosecutrix (opposite party no.4) that she was married to one Atul Stenali Harmit at Prayagraj according to the Christian Rites and Rituals. She is mother of the two children namely Anya Samara Harmit, aged about 5 years and Jeremi Allen Hermit, aged about 1-1/2 years old. 7. The applicant belongs to Kerala and he came over to Prayagraj for the first time in the year 2012 when he was appointed as Assistant Professor in ECC, Prayagraj where the opposite party no.4 was also posted as Assistant Professor. The opposite party no.4 was senior to the applicant in the department of English. After some time, both became acquainted with each other. The opposite party no.4 was senior to the applicant in the department of English. After some time, both became acquainted with each other. The details of the incident proceed further with the theme that the opposite party no.4 had lodged the first information report against her husband (Atul Stenali Harmit) and mother-in-law with allegations at Case Crime No.0068 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 355, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj, on 11.11.2021. The investigation ensued and charge sheet was filed by the police in the aforesaid case. 8. Both opposite party no.4 and her husband sought mutual divorce. Before filing of the divorce petition, the opposite party no.4 and her husband Atul Stenali Harmit entered into compromise and signed the contents of the affidavit qua the terms and conditions on which they wanted to be separated from each other. 9. After filing of the charge sheet (in aforesaid case pertaining to Crime No.0068 of 2021), the opposite party no.4 and her husband Atul Stenali Harmit moved matrimonial petition no.118 of 2022 under Section 10 A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking divorce on mutual consent. An affidavit was filed as paper no.9A in which they have stated for the first time that the second child namely 'Jeremi Allen' is son of the applicant. It is urged by the applicant that in the divorce petition itself they have not attributed anything about the parentage of aforesaid child being son of the applicant and a contradictory affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.4 and her husband before the family court concerned. 10. It has been claimed in the application that the husband of the opposite party no.4 had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.Cr. No.15985 of 2022 to quash the first information report bearing no.0068 of 2021 giving rise to the proceeding as the case no.40 of 2022 State Vs. Atul Stenali Harmit and others wherein the parties were directed by the High Court for filing compromise deed before the lower court. However, it is claimed that the matter is pending and the charge sheet has not been quashed by the High Court, as yet. The divorce petition (between the opposite party no.4 and her husband) has been decreed on 25.07.2022. In the instant case in hand (case crime no.0070 of 2022), the applicant has been arrested and bailed out. However, it is claimed that the matter is pending and the charge sheet has not been quashed by the High Court, as yet. The divorce petition (between the opposite party no.4 and her husband) has been decreed on 25.07.2022. In the instant case in hand (case crime no.0070 of 2022), the applicant has been arrested and bailed out. Relevant to mention as the petition proceeds on to add certain details as to how the situation flared up while the investigation is in progress in this case in hand. In the meanwhile, the opposite party no.4 moved an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Prayagraj, regarding conduction of DNA testing of the minor child and the applicant, which was rejected on 14.07.2022 on the ground that the opposite party no.4 had no locus to move the application and in case the Investigating Officer finds it proper, he can move appropriate application. It was observed, inter-alia, that there is no issue/dispute regarding determination of paternity of the child, however substantial evidence may be collected in regard to alleged offence of rape. 11. Subsequently, an application was moved by the opposite party no.4 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj along with the affidavit regarding DNA testing of the minor child and the applicant. Now it so happened that the Investigating Officer moved an application on 11.10.2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad for conduction of DNA testing of the minor child and the applicant. 12. In the wake of the aforesaid background and averments in the application/petition, claim of the applicant is that he has not given his consent for the conduction of blood / DNA testing. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad has ordered on 18.10.2022 for conduction of DNA testing in accordance with law. The petition proceeds on to claim that the order of the Magistrate dated 18.10.2022 in allowing DNA testing is basically in violation of the right to privacy of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2022, the applicant preferred a criminal revision bearing CNR No. UPADO1 -013127 of 2022 before the Incharge Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad but the criminal revision was dismissed on 21.10.2022 holding that the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Magistrate is interlocutory order as such revision is not maintainable. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2022, the applicant preferred a criminal revision bearing CNR No. UPADO1 -013127 of 2022 before the Incharge Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad but the criminal revision was dismissed on 21.10.2022 holding that the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Magistrate is interlocutory order as such revision is not maintainable. 13. The petition continues to proceed on the same line and asserts that fundamental right of the applicant is being violated inasmuch as the right of privacy being integral part of the personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated, whereas, in a catena of cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the right to privacy being integral part of right to liberty cannot be violated and this mandate is applicable to all cases including the one where the investigation is going on and the charge sheet has not been filed. Consequently, the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad, directing the DNA testing / blood test of the minor child and the applicant, as affirmed by the revisional court on 21.10.2022 are not sustainable in the eye of law. Both the orders have been impugned by way of this application. 14. At the very outset, relevant to mention that preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for informant (opposite party no.4) questioning the maintainability of this application to the ambit that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the investigation of this case is underway wherein apart from other Sections of I.P.C., offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is also involved and during course of the investigation, this Court has no powers to exercise jurisdiction so as to interfere with the investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this juncture. 15. In reply to the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed that insofar as exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law is specific that in cases of urgency and in order to secure ends of justice, the inherent powers can be exercised by this Court so as to do complete justice. 16. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Privy Council King-Emperor Vs. 16. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Privy Council King-Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 0 ICLF (SC) 30, 1945 0 AIR (PC)18; 1943 71 Law Report Ind. App. 203 and stressed on the last three paragraphs of the judgment by submitting that the Privy Council has expressed view that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 interrupted and submitted that the view expressed by the Privy Council itself was to the purport and meaning that in normal course, “functions of the Courts begin when charge is preferred”. It means only after charge sheet is preferred only then Court's interference is justified. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant has continued with his reply and claimed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are supplementary and not overlapping. Both are required to act in its respective sphere. Learned counsel again placed reliance on some parts of the aforesaid citation. 19. Apart from that, on the point of maintainability for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court in relation to this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal 1993 O ICLF (SC) 539 wherein under facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was contested between the husband and the wife wherein fact of the paternity of the child was in issue and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there were other methods to disapprove paternity and medical test cannot be conclusive of the paternity. 20. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmacutical Works Ltd. and others Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC 122 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held, inter-alia, that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 21. On the basis of above decision of the Privy Council and the Hon'ble Apex Court, contention is that there is no bar to the exercise of power vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. during investigation. On the basis of above decision of the Privy Council and the Hon'ble Apex Court, contention is that there is no bar to the exercise of power vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant proceeds on to assert that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to be exercised for doing complete justice and securing ends of justice and the other ingredients described in this Section (482 Cr.P.C.) and power to do complete justice is vested in the Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, DNA testing as directed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad, cannot be done in the absence of consent of the applicant. Learned counsel claimed that it is a fit case for interference for securing the ends of justice and to protect right of privacy of the applicant. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even during continuance of the investigation. 22. While retorting to the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has persuaded to the substance of point of issue involved in the case of King Emperor by clarifying that insofar as point of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in the of case King Emperor (supra), the Privy Council was itself of the view and laid parameters as to when inherent powers can be exercised in matters of investigation and in abscence of these parameters, learned counsel proceeds on to state that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be done in the way sought by the applicant at this juncture. Further insofar as the right to privacy of the applicant is concerned, no doubt it is, inalienable, and integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but that does not give absolute liberty to a person, but the liberty can be curtailed by just and fair procedure by following the procedure established by law in this regard. In this case, nothing of the sort is involved as has been claimed by the applicant. The liberty is subject to reasonable restrictions. 23. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has placed reliance on the Full Bench (seven Judges) of this High Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 1989 Crl.LJ. The liberty is subject to reasonable restrictions. 23. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has placed reliance on the Full Bench (seven Judges) of this High Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 1989 Crl.LJ. 1013 has claimed that the Full Bench has settled the law on the point of interference being caused by exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during investigation of a case as not permissible. The Full Bench has concluded that the High Court has no inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the investigation that is being done by the police. The High Court has no inherent power to stay arrest of the accused during the investigation. 24. Apart from that, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has persuaded to the point that it is only in those particular cases where arbitrariness results in violation of privacy only then there would arise ground for interference in order to ensure protection of the fundamental rights of a person/citizen in appropriate cases. But in cases where procedure prescribed by law is just, fair and reasonable and after following it right to privacy is restricted and restraint is applied on a person then there is no violation of right of privacy of a person. 25. In this regard, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari on 27 April, 2012 FAO (OS) No.547 of 2011, AIR 2012 Delhi 151 wherein also under prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, Delhi High Court had directed for blood / DNA testing of Narayan Dutt Tiwari. Discussion and Conclusion 26. No doubt, insofar as the submission raised regarding maintainability of this application for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during course of investigation is concerned, it can be observed that as per dictum of aforecited case of King-Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 0 ICLF (SC) 30, 1945 0 AIR (PC)18; 1943 71 Law Report Ind. App. No doubt, insofar as the submission raised regarding maintainability of this application for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during course of investigation is concerned, it can be observed that as per dictum of aforecited case of King-Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 0 ICLF (SC) 30, 1945 0 AIR (PC)18; 1943 71 Law Report Ind. App. 203, inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in rarest of rare and exceptional cases and circumstances which may of its own justify such exercise; but insofar as this rare and exceptional apsect is concerned, the Privy Council was of the view that in case bare perusal of the report does not make out commission of any offence or cognizable offence then the investigation pertaining to that first information report may be interfered with. The Privy Council did not mandate in a way that in all cases, inherent jurisdiction can be exercised, while the case is one at the investigation level, the Privy Council categorically held that the “domain of the Court begins when charge is preferred”. 27. The point in issue that arises for determination pertains to fact whether inherent jurisdiction of this Court (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.), can be invoked during investigation of a case. Can it be said that no offence is made out from perusal of the report? Can it be said that no cognizable offence is made out from perusal of the report? 28. Now this Court would have to consider the very language and import of allegations contained in the first information report and to contemplate on the point whether bare description contained in the first information report makes out, inter-alia, alleged offence of rape and commission of cognizable offence or not? 29. In that regard, as this Court proceeds with the description contained in the FIR it is reflected that the allegations are expressive of solitary view that “taking advantage of the opposite party no.4 on 05.12.2019”, the applicant allegedly “invited” the opposite party no.4 “at his residence in ECC campus served tea and admixed some noxious substance in tea due to which she became unconscious”. Consequently, rape was committed upon her. Consequently, rape was committed upon her. When she regained her consciousness, she asked the applicant as to why he deceived her when he threatened her and told that he has made a video clip of the incident and he would viral it to the public at large and “inform about it to her husband”. Thus, he allegedly kept her under constant fear, blackmailed her and taking advantage of this situation, the applicant continued to commit rape upon her as a result of which she conceived and developed pregnancy which resulted in birth of the second child (Jeremi Allen Harmit born to her). The alleged rape and birth of the child thus becomes point in issue directly involved in this case. Here point of paternity of the child is neither in issue nor is it raised as such. But the allegations of rape, if unrebutted, would be penal. At this stage, all evidence that sheds light on the alleged commission of rape become relevant in issue. 30. It is no denying fact that under facts and circumstances of the case in hand, allegations prima-facie make out a cognizable offence. It can be said that the allegations made in the first information report, inter-alia, make out commission of a cognizable offence. Simlicitor alleged commission of the rape upon the opposite party no.4 is, in fact, in issue and point of birth of the second child to the opposite party no.4 is subsidiary reference due to the commission of rape which (act) is imputed to the applicant. That being the case, the investigation on these aspects may go on uninterruptedly. Therefore, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised at this stage of investigation and the case cannot be said to be falling within circumference – rare and exceptional. 31. Similarly, insofar as point of violation of the right to privacy and fundamental right of the applicant is concerned, it can be observed that the right to privacy is not an absolute right but subject to reasonable and fair restriction. In the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rohit Shekhar (supra) wherein the Delhi High Court dealt with the entire matter and DNA testing was forced upon Narayan Dutt Tiwari. In this case in hand, the determination of factum of rape is to be done for which material/evidence is being collected by the Investigating Officer. In the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rohit Shekhar (supra) wherein the Delhi High Court dealt with the entire matter and DNA testing was forced upon Narayan Dutt Tiwari. In this case in hand, the determination of factum of rape is to be done for which material/evidence is being collected by the Investigating Officer. The process of collection of material during investigation in that regard may go on uninterruptedly. It would not be convenient to express any opinion about the merit or demerit of the material sought to be collected by the Investigating Officer at this juncture. It is exclusive prerogative of the Investigating Officer to carry out investigation in all fairness and transparency, as such no interference in investigation is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction as vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 32. Insofar as the point of impingement of fundamental right and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, of the applicant is concerned, it cannot be said to have been violated by the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad, for specific reason that collection of evidence/material relevant during course of investigation is going on which is a procedure to be adopted while investigating a case by virtue of provisions contained under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This mandate cannot be termed to be unfair, unreasonable and unjust, conversely it is just and fair. It is noticeable that the learned Magistrate has passed order in his supervisory capacity enabling the Investigating Officer to collect material and evidence having nexus with the offence alleged. At the cost of repetition, it can be observed that this Court should refrain from observing anything, on the quality of the evidence sought to be collected during investigation, and its on merits. It being so, the applicant cannot insist on for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 33. In normal circumstances, this Court would have directed the applicant to approach the appropriate Court exercising jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievances. It being so, the applicant cannot insist on for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 33. In normal circumstances, this Court would have directed the applicant to approach the appropriate Court exercising jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievances. But in order to ensure justice on merit of the case, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though not maintainable at this stage in its present form (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) calling for interference in the ongoing investigation of this case is taken to be a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But considering the case from that angle as has been brought by way of this application/petition before this Court wherein both the sides have stuck to their guns by their respective pleadings which they have exchanged, inter-se, obviously it can be observed with utmost caution that the case in hand is not the one falling in the category of rarest of rare cases and exceptional circumstance which alone would justify indulgence of this Court in the ongoing investigation at this stage, as the law in this regard is well settled that there shall be no interference with the investigation of an offence by the Courts. The allegations in the report make out a cognizable offence on the face, to be specific -offence of rape -as such. 34. It is exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer to collect all the relevant material and evidence which are reflective and have direct or indirect nexus to the offence alleged. Once the investigation commenced under Section 157 Cr.P.C., it should reach to its logical conclusion as provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. If some vital and important material / evidence is available then it is required to be collected and every effort should be made to bring it on record so as to ensure logical end of the legal process. 35. Insofar as the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad, directing for DNA testing is concerned, the same cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the applicant has not consented for it. The applicant being an accused of the offence of rape, he can be directed for DNA testing for collecting material during investigation. The applicant being an accused of the offence of rape, he can be directed for DNA testing for collecting material during investigation. Thus DNA testing would not be treated to be in violation of the right to privacy as such it cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. In the case of Rohit Shekhar (supra), Narayan Dutt Tiwari was forced to undergo DNA testing despite his stiff resistance to the order of DNA testing. 36. In such cases like the present one where fact in issue primarily and solely is aligned to the alleged commission of rape upon the opposite party no.4 by the applicant, truth can be divulged by conduction of DNA testing of the applicant. Under the prevailing facts and circumstances of this case, DNA testing cannot be halted merely on the ground that the person, whose DNA testing is required to be done has not consented to such testing. Similarly the lower revisional court was justified when it refused (vide order dated 21.10.2022) to interfere with the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Allahabad, on the ground of it being interlocutory order. No infirmity is thus discovered in the order impugned passed by the lower revisional court. Moreover this Court has heard, in extenso, the applicant on the point of relief sought by way of challenge made to the order of DNA testing and considered the matter in entirety, therefore, no grievance in regard to rejection of criminal revisional by the lower revisional court on technical ground exist. 37. Insofar as the guidelines in the case of Goutam Kundu (supra) is concerned, in that case question of paternity was primarily fact in issue to be adjudicated upon between the wife and the husband where birth of the child was disowned by the husband, whereas, in this case, the point of determination of paternity of the child has got no relevance nor claimed. Therefore, the petition though taken to be one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India also lacks merit and deserves dismissal. 38. Therefore, the petition though taken to be one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India also lacks merit and deserves dismissal. 38. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that at this stage, when the investigation is going on attention of the Investigating Officer would be on the allegations made in the first information report which aspect, per se, is based upon alleged commission of the offence of rape upon the opposite party no.4 by the applicant and consequent development of pregnancy and birth of a child. The Investigating Officer is free to collect material relevant by following due procedure of law. At the investigation stage, no interference is warranted by this Court and the investigation may go on uninterruptedly. 39. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. 40. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed on the merit of the case and authenticity of the material sought to be collected by the Investigating Officer during course of the investigation and the investigating agency shall not be prejudiced by the observation made hereinabove and the same is confined solely to the disposal of this petition and would in no case travel beyond it. 41. Cost easy.