ABDULLAH Vs. HANMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision arising in proceedings under Section 148, Hyd. Criminal P. C. corresponding to Section 145, Indian Criminal P. C. The second party in the original proceedings being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate holding that the first party was in possession of the suit land has preferred this revision. The Magistrate on the application of the first party who is the respondent before me came to the conclusion that there was apprehension of a breach of peace and passed an order to that effect on 29. 3. 1950. Immediately after, he took over the land under Government supervision pending enquiry. The parties were called upon to submit the statements with regard to their respective claims. After enquiry the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was proved by evidence that the first party was in possession of the land on the date of the order and two months prior to that and, therefore, directed that the land that was taken under the supervision of the Government be handed over into the possession of the first party.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the petitioners confined his arguments to purely questions of law as affecting the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as in revisions preferred against an order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the High Court rarely interferes with findings of fact arrived at by the Magistrate on enquiry. The first point urged by the learned advocate was that no summons was issued to a necessary party in the case and as 4 such the whole proceedings were vitiated. The second argument of the learned advocate was that the notice of the apprehension of breach of peace was not put up on a conspicuous place as required by law. This, he contended, also vitiated the proceedings. The third argument was that there was no clear finding of the Magistrate that there was apprehension of breach of peace after the second party had been noticed and he had put in his statement as the original order holding that there was apprehension of breach of peace was only an ex parte order. He contended that the Magistrate should have given a definite finding, after the statement of the second party was filed, that there was apprehension of breach of peace.

(3.) IT would be desirable to dispose of the last point in the first instance because there does not appear to be any substance in that argument, for, where the Magistrate had come to a conclusion that there was apprehension of breach of peace and thereafter called upon the parties to file their respective claims, the law does not contemplate a further finding unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by him in the first instance was not correct in which. case he may vary his order and say that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. II, however, alter going through the statements and at any later stage he is of opinion that there is no apprehension of any breach of peace, the proceedings would be dropped and the property would be handed over into the possession of that party from whose possession it was taken under the supervision of the Government. Therefore, the fact that there was no subsequent finding that there was apprehension of breach of peace would not make the order illegal.