BALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN title suit No. 3 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara, a receiver had been appointed for harvesting of paddy. On 10 -4 -64, the receiver filed an application before the learned additional Munsif that the petitioners forcibly removed the paddy which was kept in thrashing floor. The learned Munsif went into evidence, accepted the receiver's version and held that the paddy, was removed from the custody of the Court. He directed the filing of a complaint under Section 379, I. P.C. before the S. D. M., Kendrapara against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Cuttack. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Addl. Sub -ordinate Judge, Cuttack. Sri M. J. Rao, Addl. Sub -Judge, heard and dismissed the appeal. This revision has been filed on the appellate order.

(2.) THE only contention raised by Mr. Misra is that under Section 195 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of the Addl. Munsif, Kendrapara, is not subordinate to that of the Addl. Sub -Judge, Cuttack, as no appeal ordinarily lies from the decrees passed by it to the Addl. Sub -Judge. The contention required careful examination.

(3.) IN the result, the appellate judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Judge, Cuttack, who would himself hear the appeal and go into other questions. The revision is allowed. Petition allowed.