V LAKSHMIAH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemgal, to take action under Section 145 of the Criminal P.C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar Sub-Division, in case No. C. M. C. 12/75, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Criminal P.C. on 24-2-1975 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 179 of RajakallabalH village measuring 2-20 acres, 4 Eucalyptus, trees, and the harvested Ragi crop stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkappiah. On the same day he passed another order under Section 146, Criminal P. C, appointing the Tahsildar of Kolar Taluk as Receiver and authorising him to attach and take possession of the said land and the harvested Ragi crop stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkap-paiah. In this revision petition, what the petitioners who are members of the Second Party have challenged is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was clearly in error in passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) and also an order under Section 146, Criminal P. C, in respect of the harvested ragi crop stocked in the thrashing yard of Ohikkappaiah.

(2.) It is contended by Sri H. M. Muniswamygowda learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is clear from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police that the ragi crop in question after harvest had been removed from the disputed land and stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkappiah since about a month and a half prior to the initiation of the proceedings, and that being the case subsection (2) of Section 145, Criminal P. C, is not attracted and as such it cannot be regarded as crop within the meaning of that sub-section and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned orders in respect of that item of property exceeded his jurisdiction,

(3.) I think there is considerable force in the said contention. It is not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the respondents that the ragi crop in question was stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkappaiah since about a month and a half prior to the initiation of proceedings. Granting therefore that the said crop was raised in the disputed land and before it was removed to the thrashing yard of Chikkappiah it was harvested in that land itself, it was not open to the sub-divisional Magistrate in the situation in which the said crop was found to take action in respect of that item also. The word 'crops' used in subsection (2) of Section 145, Criminal P. C, does not, in my opinion, include crops which have already been harvested and taken away from the land on which they were grown and stored somewhere else long before the initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was therefore clearly in error in passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) and also an order under Section 146, Criminal P. C, in respect of the said ragi crop authorising the Tahsil-dar to attach and take possession of the same.