(1.) THESE petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by the respondents in M. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nandyal, for quashing the orders made against them under Sections 144 and 111 of the Code on 2-1-1979 and 3-1-1979 respectively. The parties to both the petitions are the same.
(2.) THE Sub-divisional Magistrate (Executive), Nandyal, purporting to act under Section 144 Cr. P. C. issued an order in M. C. No. 1/1979 on 2-1-1979 directing the petitioners herein not to obstruct Binji Hussain Saheb, the first respondent in these cases, from taking water to his land from S. No. 533 belonging to the petitioners. The very next day i. e. on 3 1-1979 he issued another order under Section 111 Cr. P. C. calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be asked to execute bonds for Rupees 1000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to keep the peace for one year on the ground that he had credible information that they were bent upon obstructing Binji Hussain Saheb from taking water from their land which is likely to cause breach of peace and tranquillity in and around the limits of Kanala village. Sri Ayyapu Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the order referred to above made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in M. C. 1 of 1979 is without jurisdiction besides being illegal as it was passed in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 144 of Cr. P. C. and in violation of a temporary injunction granted by a Civil Court and that the order made under Section 111 Cr. P. C. being only a sequel to the earlier order under Section 144 of the Code, is also bad and cannot be sustained. It is on the other hand argued for the first respondent that the impugned orders are unimpeachable, that the remedy sought by the petitioners is misconceived as they should have approached the Sub-divisional Magistrate himself with a request to rescind the order as provided in Section 144 (5) of the Code and that in any view, no relief could be claimed by the petitioners in Cr. M. P. No. 80/79 since the order sought to be quashed is no longer in force and had worked itself out by efflux of time. The order made in M. C. No. 1/79 under Section 144 Cr. P. C. reads as under: Whereas credible information is laid before me that the complainant has been irrigating his lands in S. Nos. 481 and 535 of Kanala village of Nandyal Taluk, within the local jurisdiction of this Court, through the K. C. C. water supplied through S. No. 533. that the respondents herein jointly and severally with an ulterior motive to grub the lands of the complainant under the mortgage of Rule 1 have obstructed the flow of water causing annoyance and threat to the complainant to part with the lands and that the enquiry had upon it made me to appear that the respondents herein jointly and severally obstructed the free flow of water to the fields of the complainant has a right to enjoy under field to field irrigation system of M. K. C. C. Therefore I do hereby order you not to obstruct the complainant from taking water to his fields and do prohibit you all not to interfere directly or indirectly with the right of the complainant to irrigate his lands through S. No. 533.
(3.) THERE is no gainsaying that the aforesaid order spent itself out having been made more than two months back as Sub-section (4) of Section 144 of the Code lays down that no order under that section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof, but this by itself is not sufficient to reject Crl. M. P. 80/79 as contended for the respondents. The High Court will not of course generally interfere where order of the Magistrate has ceased to remain in force by efflux of time save in exceptional cases involving questions of jurisdiction but it is the petitioners' contention in these cases that the impugned order was made without jurisdiction. If it were to be found ultimately that the order is made without jurisdiction, the power of the High Court to quash it notwithstanding that it has spent itself out cannot be doubted.