LUCAS AND FATHERS Vs. FATHER BILAVENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by 'A' party/petitioners against the order passed in M.C. No. 58/92/(A2) dated 31-5-1993 by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem.

(2.) The 19th respondent, Inspector of Police, Thammampatti, Attur Taluk, initiated the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C., before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, against the petitioners/A party as also the respondents 1 to 18/B party. On entertaining the petition filed by the police, learned Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C., on 23-6-1992, following which both 'A' and 'B' parties appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. The matter was periodically adjourned for filing the written statement by respective parties on 21-7-1992, 2-8-1992, 15-9-1992, 29-9-1992 and 19-10-1992. In the mean time the petitioners/'A' party filed an application to send for some documents to enable them to file a written statement. No order has been passed on such application. But the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate passed the final order on 31-5-1993 in M.C. No. 58/92(A2), without even conducting any enquiry. But the final order shows, as if the Executive Magistrate has gone through the records and the written statement filed by both the parties and thereafter he came to the conclusion that 'B' party/respondent 1 to 18 were in possession of the land in dispute. Against this order, the present revision has been filed by 'A' party/petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Venkataraman, appearing for Mr. V. Nicholas, counsel for the petitioners/'A' party raises three points in this revision. They are :-(i) Even without receiving written statement from 'A' party, learned Sub-Divisional. Executive Magistrate has passed the final order by making a false observation that 'A' party has filed the written statement, and has been perused by him.(ii) Under Section 145(4), Cr. P.C., opportunity must be given to both parties to adduce evidence, before coming to the conclusion.(iii) The word 'evidence' as incorporated in Section 145(4), Cr. P.C., denotes that the witnesses on both sides must be examined and cross-examined by the respective parties which has not been done in this case.On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners/'A' party vehemently contends that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate is illegal and liable to be set aside and as such he requested the Court to remand the matter to him for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 18/B' party also does not dispute this. He also admits on verification of the records in this Court, that no such written statement was filed and as such the order was passed without giving opportunity to the parties.