In Re: Bakir Alli Khan Sahib

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—The charge in this case against the accused was that after the Immovable property bad been distrained, he removed the

crops and thereby committed an offence u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, and Section 212 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Trial Magistrate

dismissed the complaint u/s 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate considered that there were prima facie grounds for a

further inquiry into the charge and set aside the dismissal. As I bad occasion to point out once before, unless the District Magistrate can come to

some definite conclusion upon the materials, he ought not to set aside the order of dismissal on the bare ground that it is possible on a further

enquiry the accused may be convicted. The District Magistrate says rightly enough that the finding come to in a civil proceeding before the Revenue

Divisional Officer u/s 90 of the Madras Estates Land Act is not evidence in the case, but he says later on that the result of the enquiry shows that

there is ground for a further inquiry into the criminal charge. This latter dictum is not consistent with the first opinion. If the proceeding is not

evidence it cannot be used for any purpose. Apart from the conclusion come to at the Revenue enquiry, no other evidence is indicated by the

District Magistrate which necessitates a further enquiry into the case. He himself points out that there has been a delay in the presentation of the

petition to him. The question is one of civil rights between a landlord and his tenant, and it would be better to leave such a matter as this to be

settled by the Revenue Court than that it should be taken up by the Criminal Court. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the order, setting aside

the dismissal, should be set aside.