HARNANDAN RAI AND ANR. Vs. SHEO DEO RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision arising out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The courts have come to the conclusion that there is a dispute relating to immovable property which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, and the court further found itself unable to decide which of the parties is in possession. The court accordingly attached the property under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal procedure until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof. The order in question was perfectly a valid order and this Court sitting in revision can not interfere with it. Two points have, however, been urged.

(2.) FIRSTLY that in the initial order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer it was not stated that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace, nor did the order specifically mention the grounds upon which he was so satisfied. As has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Kapoor Chand v. Suraj Prasad, 1933 (1) A.W.R. (H.C.) 249, where a Magistrate is satisfied from a police -report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, he is seized of jurisdiction to take action and he is empowered by the Code to act in a particular way. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate arises from the fact that he has received certain information and that he satisfied as to the truth of that information. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate does not depend on how he proceeds. If he has jurisdiction be is not deprived of jurisdiction merely because his procedure is erroneous or defective. It was further held that where an order under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure did not expressly state that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a likelihood of breach of peace nor did the order specifically mention the grounds upon which he was so satisfied, and the proceedings showed that the accused was not prejudiced, the irregularity committed by the Magistrate was cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this particular case Mr. Barbari appearing on behalf of the applicants has not been able to show how his clients have been prejudiced by the failure on the part of the Magistrate to state expressly that he was satisfied that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. Consequently the irregularity committed by the Magistrate is cured in the present case by Section 537 Code of Criminal Procedure, more specially when, after the written statements had been filed by parties and evidence was led, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace regarding the possession of this land.

(3.) THERE is no force in this revisional application, and it is accordingly dismissed.