JEET NARAIN Vs. NARESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and perused judgments of the Magistrate and the lower revisional court. In proceedings under Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. after taking evidence the learned Magistrate prepared catalogue of evidence. He referred to the police report about posses sion and then recorded his finding of possession in favour of the revisionist. Learned lower revisional court found that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate evidence and that he relied upon police report which could not be an evidence on the point of possession. The learned lower revisionai court concluded that the order of the Magistrate is illegal and allowing the revision set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the Magistrate for fresh decision in accordance with law and observations made in the judgment.

(2.) AGAINST this, revisionist has come to this Court. Police Report under Sectipq 145 (1) Cr. P. C. can be admissible only for recording satisfaction of apprehension of breach of peace and passing preliminary order under Section 145 (1 ). It cannot be evidence of possession under Section 145 (4 ). Under Section 145 (I) it is the duty of the police officer to report about apprehension of breach of peace. If he proceeds further and gives any report regarding pos session he exceeds his jurisdiction and unless he comes in the vvitnes box for giving evidence of possession, his report about possession, cannot be perused. It is obvious from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that he was influenced by the police report regarding possession. Thus the judgment of the Magistrate was vitiated by reliance on inadmissible evidence. Conclusion of the learned lower revisional court cannot be called illegal or improper.