SURJYAMONI GORADA Vs. HAREKRUSHNA HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the unsuccessful revisional Petitioner before the learned Add!. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that one' Harekrishna Harijan, opp. party herein, as the first party filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P.C. before the learned Addl. Tahasildar -cum -Executive Magistrate, Nawarangpur claiming that the scheduled land belongs to him, which is recorded in the name of his grandfather Late Samuel Sobha Christian. It was asserted that during October, 1989, the second party member (petitioner herein) Suryamani Gorada demolished his house which he had constructed to see and watch the ripen crop and he was also dispossessed from the disputed land. The learned Magistrate after going through the materials placed before him both oral and documentary, declared the possession. of the first party over the disputed land and directed delivery of possession to said first party Harekrushna Harijan. Aggrieved with the order, the second party, the present Petitioner, approached the 'learned Sessions Judge, which was heard and disposed of by the Add. Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge having found no merit in the revision dismissed the same on contest by order dated 22 -11 -1995, which is ought to be challenged in this Court by way of a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C 2. 1995(4) S.C. C. 41

(3.) THE first question that is raised for consideration, 'is, as to whether the present petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. is maintainable at the instance of the unsuccessful revision Petitioner in view of the bar contemplated under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C. his revision having been dismissed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge. It is not disputed that the opposite party as the first party member, initiated a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. against the present Petitioner as the second party and the learned Executive Magistrate declared the possession in his favour and against the present Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present Petitioner moved in a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was heard by the learned Add!. Sessions Judge and the revision was dismissed. This present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is for exercising the inherent power of this Court, which is in the garb of a second revision.