CHANDRA SHEKHAR BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision, preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of J the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 20/1/1992, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No. 6/18/ 1988, whereby a preliminary order dated 9/2/1987 has been made absolute under Section 133 of the Code.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the Station Officer of Police Station - Jhulaghat made a report on 31-12-1986 alleging that the revisionist Chandra Shekhar Bhatt has obstructed the public road over an area of 2500 sq. ft. in the main market, which is causing nuisance to the public. The Station Officer has requested the concerned Executive Magistrate to initiate the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the revisionist. Pursuant to the report of the Station Officer, a preliminary order was issued under Section 133(1) of the Code directing the revisionist to remove the obstruction within 15 days, else to show cause why the order be not made absolute to enforce the same. The revisionist appears to have filed his objection on 27-2-1987 denying that the land in question is public path. It is alleged by the revisionist before the Magistrate that the land over which he has dumped the building material. In fact, belongs to him. From the perusal of record, it appears that thereafter, proceedings were drawn against him under Section 137 of the Code. It Is also clear from the record that an inspection of the spot was made on 28-6-1988 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who found that by then the revisionist has already cleared the public road and the proceedings were got terminated. But another person Prayag Dutt appears to have filed a revision against said order before the Sessions Judge, which was decided on 7-12-1988, whereby the revision was allowed and case was remanded on the ground that memorandum of inspection was not prepared by the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, after giving due notice to the parties, another inspection appears to have been made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, Impugned order was passed making the preliminary order passed under Section 133(1) of the Code absolute. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been, filed.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the respondent State,