CHENNAN RAGHAVAN Vs. VENADAN KUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising in this criminal revision is whether an order passed under S.146(1B) could be challenged in revision before this Court. Under S.146(1D):

(2.) The majority of High Courts have endorsed the above view; but a Full Bench of the Patna High Court seems to have taken a different view as is seen from Raja Singh v. Mahendra Singh (AIR 1963 Patna 243 FB ). The majority view of the learned Judges reads:

(3.) This question seems to have come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Ram Chandra Aggarwal v. The State of U.P. ( AIR 1966 SC 1888 ). In that case a reference was made by the Magistrate in a proceeding under S.145 for decision to the civil court on the question of possession under S.146(1) of the Code. The reference was made to the Munsiff in whose territorial jurisdiction the subject matter of the dispute lay. But one of the parties moved the District Judge for transfer of the case to another Munsiff since the Munsiff to whom the matter was referred was the Munsiff who had passed the order in execution which had led to the dispute between the parties. The District Judge accordingly transferred the case to another Munsiff and finding of possession was entered by that Munsiff on enquiry. On the basis of the finding the learned Magistrate passed final orders in the M. C and from that a revision was taken to the Sessions Court and the ground taken was that the decision of the civil court was a nullity since it had no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. It was also contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the case and that the ultimate order made by the Magistrate was a nullity. The revision having been rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge, the aggrieved party took up the matter in further revision to the High Court. The revision petitioners rested their case on the sole ground that S.24 CPC. was not available in respect of a reference under S.146(1) Cr. PC. and that, therefore, the proceedings subsequent to the transfer of the reference from the court of one Munsiff to that of another is a nullity. The High Court permitted the point to be urged. The main ground taken was that the proceeding before the civil court was not a civil proceeding within the meaning of S.141 CPC. The High Court negatived the contention. From that an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed:-