Kamta Singh vs Bansh Rakhan Singh and Others

Dr. J.N. Dubey, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.1986 of the Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Patna.

It appears that on 17.7.1968, the officer-in-charge of P.S. Bikram submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Danapur stating that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with respect to the possession of the property in dispute with a request for initiating u/s 144, Cr.PC Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings u/s 144, Cr. P.C, which were subsequently converted into proceedings, u/s 145, Cr.PC The case was subsequency transferred to the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Danapur, who vide his order dated 30.11.1973 declared the possession of the opposite parties, Dip Narain Singh and Ors. O.P. No. 1, Bansh Rakhan Singh field Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1974 in this Court which was allowed on 9.12.1977 and the case was remitted to the trial Court for deciding afresh on merit. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who heard the case in pursuance of the order of remand, dropped the proceedings vide his order dated 18.3.1985. Applicant filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed in default on 16.12.1987. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision.

No second revision is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, this revision filed by the applicant against the order of the revisional Court, is not legally maintainable.

Learned Counsel for the applicant prayed that in case the second revision is not maintainable, he may be permitted to convert it into proceeding u/s 482, Cr.PC

Firstly, it is now well settled that inherent power u/s 482 Cr.PC cannot be invoked for doing something which has been specifically barrred by the Legislature. Secondly, it will not be proper to permtt this revision to be converted into proceeding u/s 482, Cr.PC after a lapse of over 8 years. It is not a type of case where anyone could have committed a bona fide mistake of filing criminal revision. Since the second revision is specifically barred, it cannot be reasonably claimed that it was field under some wrong legal advise. Moreover, as it would appear from above, the proceedings u/s 145, Cr.PC were initiated on the basis of the report dated 17.7.1968. About 28 years have passed and there has been no order in favour of the petitioner u/s 145, Cr.PC Proceedings u/s 145, Cr.PC are of summary nature and are meant for meeting urgent situation. There is nothing on record to show that there has been any untoward incident between the parties during this period. Therefore, no useful would be served by permitting these proceeding to be revived after such a long time. I am, therefore, not inclined to permit the learned Counsel to convert this revision into the proceedings u/s 482, Cr.PC

In the result, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.