LUDHIRAM Vs. ANIL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order, the present applicant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Neemuch. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 20-8-2011 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The present applicant filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. argues that the present applicant had possession over the suit property for a very long period of time and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 was dispossessed within the period contemplated by the proviso to Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Patuck Vs. Fatima A. Kindasa, : AIR 1997 SC 2320. The second part of his arguments is that there is a civil suit pending in respect of the suit property and, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. cannot go on. For this, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Vs. State of U.P., : AIR 1985 SC 472. His third argument is that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not provide him the opportunity to lead evidence and, therefore, the case should be remanded back with a direction to give him an opportunity to lead evidence and, thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should decide the case.

(3.) I have gone through the certified copies filed by the present applicant. In my opinion, opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to the present applicant by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The order sheet of record of Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate show that the application was filed before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 14-9-2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application on 5-10-2010 under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. The application was decided ex parte on 5-10-2010 itself and subsequent to this, a receiver was appointed. The receiver sold the crop and deposited the amount with Police Station Jeeran. The present applicant first time gave his appearance on 11-2-2011. He filed his reply on 28-2-2011 and then the case was fixed for evidence on 14-3-2011. On 14-3-2011, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not available as he was busy in some other administrative work. Accordingly, the case was fixed on 21-3-2011. On that date, also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not available and, therefore, the case was fixed on 28-3-2011.