ANUP R KANTAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith, by consent. This revision application arises from order dated 30-1-1999 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/1998 by the Sessions Judge, at Panaji. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein has set aside the order dated 15-4-1998 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 64/1997/b by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Panaji and has further directed that the possession of the suit shops should be restored to respondent No. 2 who had the possession of the same on the date of his application i. e. on 4-9-97 subject to any order which any of the parties may obtain from the Civil Court. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 15-4-98 confirmed the interim order dated 11-9-97 passed by the Magistrate in the said case and thereby held that the possession handed over to the petitioner by the police pursuant to the order dated 11-9-97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was to be maintained. In fact, it was by the order dated 10-9-97 that the learned Judicial Magistrate had directed the delivery of possession of the suit shops to the petitioner on the ground that the police had no reason to proceed to the suit premiss on the night of 3-9-97 and to undertake to break open the lock of the suit shops and hand over the possession thereof to the respondent No. 2 when undisputedly the lock was opened by the police with the keys provided by the brother of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant to the decision are that on 2-9-97 the respondent No. 2 herein lodged with the Panaji Police Station a complaint dated 1-9-97 to the effect that on 1-9-97 when his son had gone to the suit premises, he found that the locks of the premises had been changed by someone and it was causing obstruction to his entry in the suit premises though he was lawfully entitled to enter the same being the lessee thereof. It was also stated in the complaint that he had reason to believe that the said locks were changed by the petitioner since he had earlier threatened to dispossess the respondent No. 2. It was the case of the respondent No. 2 that he was the lessee of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 325/- and the lease was created by Manguesh Sinai Kantak grand father of the petitioner. It was pursuant to the said complaint that the police personnel of the Panaji Police Station came to the suit shops on the night of 3-9-97 and broke open one lock by which time the petitioners brother arrived at the scene and offered the keys of the remaining two locks. The police after opening the two locks, as it was late and dark, could not complete the panchanama and fixed new locks and retained the keys of the new lock with them and on the next day i. e. on 4-9-97 after completing the panchanama took away the said new locks and left the suit shops in the possession of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THEREUPON the petitioner filed an application under section 457 Cr. P. C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji for directions to the police to deliver the possession of the suit shops to the petitioner. After hearing the parties, learned Magistrate by order dated 10-9-97 ordered the possession of the suit shops to be delivered to the petitioner, which order was duly complied with by the police on 12-9-97 and the possession of the suit premises was delivered to the petitioner.