CHAND Vs. DHUNDI RAM MATHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Sri Chand against an order dated 24-3-1952, passed by the learned District Magistrate of Agra by which ha refused to interfere with an order dated 29-10-1951, passed by the learned City Magistrate of Agra in a case under Section 145, Criminal p. C. The case furnishes an instance which illustrates that the provisions of Sections 145 and 146, Criminal P. C. , are so easily attracted by Magistrates with utter disregard of what those sections really contemplate before an action under those sections can be warranted.

(2.) ON 18-9-1950, a complaint was lodged by Dhundi Ram opposite party against Sri Chand, applicant in the Court of the City Magistrate which runs as follows:

(3.) UPON that report the learned City Magistrate passed the following order on 3-1-1951: "attach property. Issue notice to opposite party. Pis date for evidence. " sri Chand filed a written statement before the City Magistrate contending that he has been in exclusive possession over this land for nearly three years; that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace and that Dhundi Ram was not in possession over the property within the last three years. The City Magistrate required the parties to produce such evidence as they liked in support of their respective claims. Dhundi Ram relied upon a lease purported to have been executed in his favour and in favour of others by the Nazool Department on 22-8-1922. He did not, however, produce any oral evidence in support of his contention that he was in actual physical possession over this land or that there was really an apprehension of breach of peace. There was further no evidence strictly to connect the identity of the disputed piece of land with any part of the land covered by the lease aforesaid. On the other side there was the evidence of sri Chand supported by two other wit nesses Daulatia and Parbhati, all of whom swore that Sri chand has been in actual physical pos session over this land for nearly the last three years and there was really no apprehension of breach of peace with regard to this plot of land. It may be noticed that the police Sub inspector who had made the report dated 2-1-1951, was not produced on behalf of Dhundi Ram, nor was he examined by the City Magistrate in order to refute the contention of Sri Chand and his witnesses that Sri Chand was really in possession for the last three years and there was no likelihood of breach of peace. In spite of these circumstances the learned City Magistrate by his order dated 29-10-1951, observed as follows: