STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMJIVAN KALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate of Amravati for setting aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and for remanding the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for passing fresh orders on the basis that the preliminary order, though passed on 1-10-1959, must be deemed to have been passed on 18-7-1958.

(2.) A few facts may be stated before we consider the point raised in the reference.

(3.) ONE Ghasiram, who is described as party No. 1, claimed to be the owner of survey No. 16 of Shirala. It is his case that this land had fallen to his share in a partition between him and his son Jagannath and he was therefore its exclusive owner. In 1957-58, he leased it to his separated son Jagannath who in his turn gave it to Ramjivan who is described as party No. 2 in these proceedings, on a batai agreement. After the expiry of the lease, Jagannath left the land after the crops were harvested, but Ramjivan did not. Ghasiram accordingly gave a notice to Ramjivan in the first week of December 1957 to quit the land. Ramjivan filed an application on 27-12-1957 for commutation of batai share into cash amount under S. 11 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. That application was however dismissed for his default on 3-7-1958.