JANGA REDDY Vs. HAFEZUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that requires consideration in this C. R. P. is whether the provisions of Sec. 141 C. P. C. are attracted to a reference made by the criminal court under Sec. 146 Cr. P. C. to a civil Court.

(2.) It appears that in the court of the 8th City Magistrate proceedings were instituted under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. The criminal Court was unable to arrive at a conclusion on the question of possession and therefore made a reference to the City Civil Court under Sec. 146 of the Cr. P. C. for a finding thereon. After the records were received, the petitioner filed an application under O. 19 R.2 C. P. C. praying for the production of all the deponents whose affidavits have been filed by the other side for cross-examination. That application was allowed. Thereupon another petition was filed for reviewing the said order. It was dismissed and when the matter went in revision to the High Court, while dismissing the said petition, it was observed that it was open to the petitioner to raise objections before the lower Court whether the provisions of C. P. C. are applicable to a proceeding of this nature. The matter was considered by the Lower Court and it came to the conclusion that the provisions of Sec. 141 C. P. C were not attracted to a reference under Sec. 146 Cr. P. C. as it was not a proceeding within the meaning of the word used in Sec. 141 C. P. C. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the two decisions of the Madras High Court viz., Kochadi Naidu v. Nagayasami Naidu, AIR 1961 Mad 247 and Kondammal v. Duraiswami Naicker, AIR 1961 Mad 384, has urged that the provisions of C. P. C. are available to a reference under Sec. 146 Cr. P. C. Unfortunately both the decisions seem to have been overruled by a subsequent decision of the said Court in Periyakarupa Thevar v. Vellai Thevar, AIR 1963 Mad 338.