MADANSETTY TIRPATAIAH Vs. STATE S I P ATMAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that requires determination in this Criminal Revision Case is, whether some additional documents could be adduced by a party in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., after the expiry of the time limit fixed by the Magistrate. The question arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioners herein, shown as respondents 4 and 5 in the lower Court, were disputing the possession of an oil mill, the other contending party being respondents 2 and 3. On the basis of a report by the Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, issued a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr. P. C., directing the parties to put in their written statements, and such documents and affidavits on which they relied in respect of their claims. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Munsif-Magistrate, Wanaparthy for disposal. It was at this stage that the petitioners herein realised that the affidavits filed by them were not duly attested as laid down in Rule 47 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. They filed an application before the Magistrate for rectifying the defect, and also for filing some additional docu- ments to substantiate their claim of possession. The learned Magistrate, in the view that the time limit had expired, refused to accept the petition. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, by his order dated 25/09/1962, held that the Magistrate was justified in refusing to allow the application. He, however observed that the discretion was with the Magistrate to look into the defective affidavits filed by the petitioners as "statements" in the case. The revision is filed against this order.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 145(1) Cri. P. C., two different Stages are contemplated, one for the filing of written statements, and the other for filing of documents and affidavits in support of actual possession. So that, if the party was not able to adduce documents within the prescribed time, the succeeding Magistrate could accept documents which the party wants to file in support of its case. On a plain reading of the section, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The practice as far as now is that within the time fixed by the Magistrate the parties not only file their written statements, but also all documents and affidavits on which they want to rely in support of their claim. The wording of the section also contemplates the fixing of a time limit for written statements and for documents and affidavits as well. The learned Magistrate, in my opinion, was justified in refusing to allow the petitioners to file additional documents at the stage when the case was posted by him for disposal.