BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. BALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. A. 898 of 1979 : This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar in A.S. 97 of 1979 dated 6th November, 1979. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, I hold that the learned Subordinate Judge has completely misdirected himself in his approach to the question in issue. Holding that the second defendant enquired into the matter as a Second Class Magistrate and passed the judgment and that the judgment must be considered to have been passed by a criminal court and therefore that judgment could be challenged only under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, he allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd defendant and dismissed the suit. The enquiry was held by the 2nd defendant under sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Sub-section 7 of Section 6 of the Act itself provides that an order made by any prescribed authority under sub-section (6) shall be deemed to be an order made by a civil court. Therefore it follows that the proceeding under Sub-Section (6) is a Civil Proceeding. Apart from that, under Rule 5 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rules, 1976 the prescribed authority for enquiring into a petition under sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Act is the Executive Magistrate on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or of Second Class have been conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 21. Thus it is primarily the Executive Magistrate that enquires into the matter. But if reference is made to the conferment of the powers of a Judicial Magistrate upon him it is more to identify the particular Executive Magistrate that would inquire into the natter. It does not mean that when that Executive Magistrate enquires into the petition under sub-section 6 of Section 6, he is functioning as a fudicial Magistrate. Section 21 refers to offences to be tried by Executive Magistrates on whom the powers of Judicial Magistrate are conferred. This is not a case where the plaintiff had been tried for an offence in which case only the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code had to be followed. In the case of a petition under sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Act the question of invoking the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. It is a civil proceeding. Therefore the learned Judge erred in holding that it was a criminal proceeding and consequently the civil appeal before him was not maintainable. Hence I set aside his judgment and I direct him to re-entertain the appeal and dispose it of on merits after giving notice to the parties. He should also decide the question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 25 of the Act. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar. In the circumstances of the case direct each party to bear his costs in the second appeal. C R.P. No 4415 of 1979 :

(2.) This revision is filed by the plaintiff against the discharge of the receiver by the lower Appellate Court. It is stated that the animals had been returned to the plaintiff pursuant to the decree of the trial Court and that he had also furnished security as per the direction of this Court in the second appeal. Hence no further orders are necessary on this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. C R.P. No. 1863 of 1978 :

(3.) This revision-petition is filed by the State against the finding of the trial Court on the preliminary issue whether the civil court had; jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the order passed by me in the second appeal just now, this revision-petition has become infructuous. Hence it is dismissed. No costs. Writ Petition: