DILLP KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 8-8-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1990, setting aside the order dated 25-1-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Chail, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 316/10 of 1989. By that order the learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace.

(2.) A proceeding was started against the revisionist at the instance of respondents and the learned S. D. M. on a police report submitted on 4-1-1987 drew up the proceed ings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. against the respondents. On 25-1-1990 the first party remained absent and the learned Magistrate passed the following orders: diwitiya paksha ka kathan hai ki dhara 145, cr. p. c. ke adhin kin karyawahi ki avashyakta nahi hai iski bayan tahriri dinank 2-5-87 ke para 14 men is kathan ka ullekh bhi kiya gaya hal dwitiya paksha ke kathan avam pratham pakshake anupathith money ke karan paya jata hai ki pratham paksha ka prashnagat samparti ke sambandh nahi hai avam kisi prakar ki shanti bhang hone ki ashanka bhi nahi hai. karyawahi antargat dhara 145, cr. p. c. sampat Id jati hai. dhara 146, cr. p. c. ke adhin kurkshuda sampatti dwitiya paksha ke haq men baguzashta kar dijaye. Against that order a revision was filed by the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate did not follow proper procedure. He was to record the evidence which Dilip Kumar Dutta (respondent before him) might have adduced and then to arrive a finding in the case. The learned Judge has also held that the learned S. D. M. without recording any evidence and without calling for any report from the police was not justified in coming to the conclusion that no apprehension of breach of peace existed. He also did not decide the subject-matter of dispute and give any finding that who was in possession on the date of filing of the application or two months prior to that date. The learned Judge accordingly allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 25-1-1990 and remanded back with the direction that the learned Magistrate shall fix a date for evidence of the parties without granting any adjourn ment except on compelling circumstances. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the respondents in the trial court has preferred this revision.

(3.) THE revision is, therefore, dismissed. All interim orders are hereby vacated. Revision dismissed. .