V SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STAET OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Subramaniam was convicted under Ss. 447, 379 and 188 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on each of the first two counts and simple imprisonment for one month on the last count, by the Sub-Magistrate, Tindivanam, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. But the learned District Magistrate, South Arcot. on appeal set aside the convictions under Ss. 447 and 379 I. P. C. and the sentences imposed in respect of the same, but confirmed the conviction of the petitioner only under Section 188 I. P. C. and modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

(2.) THE complaint in this case was referred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate," yillupuram, on the ground that ah order passed in M. C. 189 of 1962 on the file of that court on 13-11-1962 was disobeyed by the petitioner on 12-5-1966, The petitioner was the tenth respondent in the proceedings under Sec, 145 Crl. P. C. and he claimed item 8 in the schedule of properties in the said petition, which is the subject-matter of the present case, as having been taken by him on lease from the original owner, Padmanabha Gramani. It should be noted that the claims which led to civil disputes and the proceedings under Section 145 Crl. P. C. were between persons who claimed title as heirs of the said Padmanabha Gramani. In fact, an order of interim injunction was passed by the High Court against the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 145 Crl. P. C. Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimham appearing for the petitioner questioned the validity of the order under Section 145 Crl. P. C. on the above materials; but in my opinion, he is not entitled to do so as he failed to seek relief by taking proceedings against the said order, which has become final. Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimham has also taken a ground that the order under Section 145 Crl. P. C. has not been promulgated. But he fairly conceded that he could not urge such a ground as he was a party who took part in the proceedings in which the order was passed against him and others.

(3.) THE main contention to be considered in this case is whether the disobedience of the cider passed under Section 145 Crl. P. C. entailed one or other of the three consequences mentioned in Section. 188 I. P. C.