PREM CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, in fact, is yet at admission stage but it figured at No. I in the list of regular cases. This has perhaps happened because on 23-8-84 when Mr. L.D. Adiakha, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2 the court directed the case to be listed for hearing in the second week of October 1984. In any case, it is now admitted. Since a notice was given to the other party and appearance was put in on 23-8-84. I am deciding the matter after hearing the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This petition calls for examination of the scope of Section 456 Cr.P.C. and the ambit of that power. However, for proper appreciation I find it necessary to make a reference to brief facts.

(3.) The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 267 Kucha Ghasi Ram, Delhi. He filed eviction proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller Delhi in which a decree was passed and the Additional Rent Controller issued warrant of eviction directing that any person bound by the decree may be dispossessed and the possession restored to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was restored possession on 9-8-73 of the whole of the premises by the bailiff and other staff of the court who were accompanied by police officials for providing assistance in the execution of the decree. After this was done on 9th August 1973 the petitioner locked the premises and went away to his house. ThKereafter, the petitioner found on the next day that the persons who were made to vacate the premises in execution of the decree had re-entered the premises and taken possession of the house. The petitioner made a report in writing to the police Station Lahori Gate in pursuance of which a case under Section 448,41 34 Indian Penal Code and other relevant Sections was registered. This case was tried by Smt. Aruna Suresh, Metropolitan Magistrate who believed the entire execution proceedings to be in order but observed that the prosecution has not been able to make out any case against the accused persons other than Jawahar Lal and his brother Nathu Ram. This was done entirely on technical reading of the matter after believing that the other accused persons such as Urmila, Nirmala, Kamla Devi and Champa Devi were also dispossessed. Conviction was recorded against Jawahar Lal and Nathu Ram under Sections 448/34 Indian Penal Code The accused Tara Devi and Badri Parshad were also acquitted. Both the convicted accused were, however, dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act and some of the accused were acquitted after compromise. This order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to be recorded on 12-2-1981 and an application for restoration of possession of the premises was preferred on 17-2-81 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, refused to pass any order on this application on the ground that an appeal has been preferred against the conviction,