KOLHA JENA Vs. PRAVAKAR PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Anandapur in a proceeding under S.145, Criminal P.C. declaring possession in favour of opposite party No.1 the first party, is impugned in this revision petition. The petitioner was one of the members of the second party in the said proceeding. On a petition filed by opposite party No.1, the learned Magistrate passed an order under S. 145(1) on 17-11-1980 and called upon the parties to file written statements and documents, if any, and appear before him on 17-12-1980 for hearing. By the same order he attached the crop standing on the disputed land under S. 145(B), Cr. P.C. and appointed the R.I. as Receiver for harvesting the crops. This order of the Court was promulgated in presence of the petitioner as well as opposite party No.2, on 17-11-1980 as reported by the A.S.I., Ramachandrapur P.S. The Revenue Inspector, Khaliamenta who was appointed as the Receiver harvested the crop from the disputed land on 3-12-1980. The opposite party No.1 filed his written statements and documents on 17-12-1980. The order order-sheet of the trial Court reveals that though the case was posted on several dates i.e. 17-12-1980, 17-1- 1981, 21-2-1981 and 18-3-1981 before it was finally disposed of on 25-3-1981, the members of the second party took no steps to either file their written statements or documents after appearing through a counsel on 2-12-1981. The learned Magistrate on a perusal of the written statement and the documents produced by him, declared the opposite party No.1 (First party) to be in possession of the disputed land by the impugned orders. The documents filed by opposite party No.1 are the order of Tahasildar in mutation case No. 627/80 dated 25-11-1980 recording the properties including the disputed properties in the names of Jaladhar Patra, Nilakantha Patra, Banabihari Patra, Prafulla Patra, Satakrishna Patra, the sons of Prabhakar Patra (opposite party No.1), two rent receipts in the names of Jalandhar Patra and others and a report dated 14-7-1980 of the Amin in mutation case No. 627/80 stating that at the time of local inspection it was found that the sons of Prabhakar Patra are in possession of lands in question.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the trial Court erred in disposing of the proceeding without requiring opposite party No.1 to adduce any oral evidence. He has further submitted that the documents produced by the first party having not been proved by adducing any evidence and having not been marked as exhibits, should not have been relied upon by the Court below and the proceeding is vitiated on this ground.

(3.) The procedure to be adopted in an enquiry under S.145, Criminal P.C. is prescribed by the section itself. Sub-sec. (4) and sub-sec. (9) of S. 145, Criminal P.C. lay down the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate. The said provisions are quoted hereunder: -