High Courts(1997) 05 AHC CK 0097

Lakhram vs Kanhalya Singh

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 May 1997

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kundan Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1909 of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

Kundan Singh, J.—List has been revised. No body is present on behalf of the parties.

2.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25101990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1990 whereby the order dated 1141990 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Dudhi Pjpri, Sonbhadra in case No. 1 of 1989 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. was set aside.

3.

The proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were initiated at the instance of the applicant against Kanhaiya Singh, O.P. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, directed the property in question to be released in favour of the applicant by the order dated 1141990. The opposite party Kanhaiya Singh preferred Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1990 before the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, who allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not passed any preliminary order and he straightway passed the order of attachment. No evidence was adduced by any of the parties and the whole case was decided only on the basis of some documents.

4.

I have gone through the record and find that the learned Magistrate had not passed any preliminary order and he straightway passed the order of attachment on the basis of the police report. The learned Magistrate committed a manifest illegality inasmuch as the case was not decided on the basis of the evidence on record but it was decided on the basis of some documents regarding previous litigation under Section 133, Cr.P.C., which were subsequently dropped. The learned Magistrate ought to have directed the parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective claim. Thus the order of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

5.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed. However, it is open to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in accordance with law if any of the parties approaches him within a period of two months from today. "Interim order, if any, stand discharged".

Revision dismissed.