SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOUBTING the correctness of the decision in Ram Dular v. State of U. P., 1980 AWC 325= 1980 ACrR 230 a learned single Judge of this Court referred the instant case, arising out of Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC, to a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before this Bench for adjudication. The question at issue involves the interpretation of section 310 of the Code.

(2.) THE short facts are that on 1-6-1978 respondent No. 2 Sri Krishna Madhava Chaudhary moved an application before the City Magistrate, Etawah alleging that the three storeyed building situate in Mohalla Sewa Kali, Etawah city owned by the present applicant Satya Prakash and his two brothers was in a dilapidated condition, likely to fall down and cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by and consequently the removal of the building was necessary. On this application the Magistrate called for a report from the Tahsildar, Etawah who inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 25-7-1978. After a perusal of the report the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 133 CrPC and issued notice to both parties to adduce their evidence. Besides recording the evidence the Magistrate after giving notice to the parties made local inspection on 5-8-1979 and incorporated his inspection note. THE applicant Satya Prakash and his two brothers filed written statements. While Satya Prakash and his brother Jai Kumar opposed the allegations made in the complaint, the other co-sharer, namely, Om Prakash supported the version of Sri Krishna Madhav Chaudhary, complainant. THE City Magistrate passed the final order in the case on 13-8-1979 whereby he confirmed the conditional order dated 2-8-1978 and directed Satya Prakash and his brother Jai Kumar to get the building demolished within a period of one month failing which it would be got demolished by the Nagar Palika, Etawah. THE present applicant Satya Prakash filed a revision which was rejected by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah and hence this application under section 482 CrPC, in this Court with a prayer that the orders passed by the City Magistrate and the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah be quashed.

(3.) IT has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings under section 133 CrPC in the instant case constituted neither ' inquiry ' nor ' trial ' ;and, therefore, the provisions of section 310 were not attracted, consequently the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make local inspection and utilise the same for the purpose of giving his decision. A perusal of section 310 shows that it makes use of three expressions :