TAASHUQ HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the Magistrate not being able to decide which party was in possession referred the dispute under Section 146(1) to a civil Court and the latter gave a finding to the effect that the opposite party was in possession. On receipt of the finding the Magistrate passed the order under revision stating that he had seen the order of the civil Court and directing that the property be released in favour of the opposite party. The applicant being aggrieved by the order filed an application in revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who dismissed it remarking that under Section 146 (1-D) the finding of the civil Court on the reference could not be appealed against or revised or reviewed and that the learned Magistrate was bound to dispose of the case in accordance with the finding.

(2.) It was contended before me that in a revision application against an order of the Magistrate passed under Section 146 (1-B) the finding of the civil Court on the reference can be challenged. It is kid down in Section 146 (1-D) that:

(3.) Under Section 435 the High Court (or the Sessions Judge) can revise any finding given by an inferior criminal Court. A finding given by a civil Court under Section 146, not being a finding of a criminal Court, cannot be revised under Section 435. There is also no appeal provided against that finding in the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, even in the absence of Section 146 (1-D), the civil Courts' finding could not be challenged by a direct appeal or application in revision and the provision in Section 146 (1-D) must have been enacted in order to prevent the finding being challenged indirectly or collaterally in an appeal against, or application for revision from, the final order passed by the Magistrate under Section 146 (1-B). The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly held that he could not go into the merits of the finding of the civil Court.