CAETANO COLACO Vs. JOAO RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision filed on behalf of the applicant Cactano Colaco under S. 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The material facts are that the Fishing rights of the sluice gate at Dongzo were auctioned by the Communidade in 1963 The applicant purchased these rights under a contract from the Communidade This contract was for the period commencing from January, 1963, and ending December, 1965 The applicant entered into a sub contract with the opponent Rodrigues for this period through M/s. Betsabe Valadares and Wilfred Valadares. The opponent paid Rs. 5,600 to the applicant as consideration for the year 1963, and for the years 1964 and 1965 he assumed the liability to pay the remaining dues in instalments. The opponent was unable to pay one of the instalments of Rs. 620 50 due from him for the period October - December 1964 and, therefore, the applicant paid this instalment to Communidade. This led to a dispute between the applicant and the opponent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has impugned the order of the learned District Magistrate on inter alia the following grounds : (1) that the established facts did not warrant any action under Section 145 of the Code and, therefore, the older of the District Magistrate is illegal and improper; (2) that the District Magistrate misconceived the scope of Section 145 of the Code thereby wrongly assuming jurisdiction; (3) that the procedure followed by the District Magistrate was in contravention of the law; (4) that the facts were not properly appreciated by the District Magistrate; (5) that the District Magistrate had no power to set aside the order of the Administrator-cum-Mamlatdar dated 28th April, 1965; and (6) that the Administrator-cum-Mamlatdar had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute under Section 38 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate was barred under Section 58(2) of this Act.