MINABALA DE ALIAS MINABALA KAYAL Vs. BADALBALA KAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional petition is directed against the order of a learned Magistrate, 1st Class, made under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The present Petitioner, Minabala De, was convicted on October 29, 1962, by a learned Magistrate of the first class under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week. There was a motion before the learned Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas which was dismissed on January 7, 1963. This Court was then moved by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence. The Rule which was issued against the order of conviction was discharged on July 16, 1964.

(3.) Now, on November 29, 1962, the learned Magistrate who had convicted the accused made an order under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving possession of the room to the complainant opposite party Badalbala Koyal. In pursuance of that order possession of the room was delivered to Badalbala, the person dispossessed on December 6, 1962. Sometime after that Badalbala was dispossessed from the room by the present Petitioner Minabala De. After the Rule was disposed of by this Court an application was made before the learned Magistrate by Badalbala for restoring possession of the room to her. The learned Magistrate again made an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure on November 13, 1964, for restoring possession of the room to her. That order was executed and possession of the room was given to Badalbala on November 24, 1964. Clearly, the order of the learned Magistrate dated November 13, 1964, that is, the order complained against, is illegal. He had no jurisdiction to make a second order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure about two years after the accused person had been convicted. The first order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure was made within time and possession of the room was restored to the person dispossessed. The order had been duly executed. If thereafter the complainant Badalbala was again dispossessed by the accused she might have had her remedies open to her, but it was not open to her to make another application under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure for restoring possession of the room to her. As I have already pointed out, the second order made under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, the order dated November 13, 1964, is manifestly illegal and set aside. The accused person who has been dispossessed in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate is entitled to possession of the room. I am told by Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, that a Civil suit is already pending and that, if necessary, his client will now seek remedy in the Civil Court.