T V VELUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pertinent question that arises for my consideration in the above revision is as to the scope and ambit of Sec.145 of Crl.P.C. in deciding whether the order dated 31.12.1996 of the learned Executive Magistrate in directing the revision petitioner (A"party and the respondent B" party to maintain status quo in the light of the evidences on record to decide whether the petitioners, namely, "A" party are entitled to continue in possession of the building and premises at No.6,Commissioner Subbaiah Pillai Street,Udumalpet Town.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Udumalpet, received an information that the dispute between the revision petitioners and the respondents herein as to the possession and enjoyment of the property within the local jurisdiction of the learned Executive Magistrate, Assistant Collector, Pollachi and Sub-Divisional Magistrate was likely" to cause breach of peace. In pursuance of the said information, the learned Executive Magistrate passed an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being satisfied, and required the petitioner and respondents, who are parties to such dispute, to appeal before him and to put in writing as to the actual position of the subject of dispute, as contemplated under Sec.145(1), Crl.P.C. Of course, there is no dispute as to the compliance of the procedure contemplated under Secs.145(1) and 145(3), Crl.P.C.

(3.) MR.N.T.Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, without referring and going into the political controversies, which were considered as a background for the split in the erstwhile trade union, invited my attention to the definition of Trade Union as defined under Sec.2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.