RAGHUNATH SARMA Vs. MANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition of revision aria-ing out of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The proceedings started on an application put in by the petitioner in the Court of Mr. A. C. Nandi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilohar. The learned Magistrate was satisfied from police report that there was danger of a branch of the peace. After necessary enquiry he came to the conclusion that the property in dispute, was in possession of Manan Singh respondent on the date of the preliminary order. He, therefore, deolared that respondent was entitled to remain in possession till evicted in due course of law, and forbade all disturbances of his possession. He further directed that the sale proceeds of the crop shall go to the respondent and that the 1st party, viz., the petitioner, shall pay Es. 10 as compensation to the 2nd party, viz., Manan Singh respondent. Eaghuuath Sarma, the petitioner, put in a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, A. V. D. He rejected the petition summarily holding that interference on revision was not justified. There was no error of law or an error on a point of fact resulting in miscarriage of any justice. He observed further that he might have come to a different conclusion on facts, if the case had been before him in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner has come up on revision to this Court. He is dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below. His learned Counsel has raised two points. He has urged in the first instance that the order directing payment of compensation is illegal. This contention is correct. No compensation is awardable in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The Court could allow costs. But the direction made by the trial Court indicates that the Court was granting compensation for damages. The sale proceeds of the crop were ordered to be given to the 2nd party in addition to Rs. 10 by way of compensation. The Court did not go into the question as to what expenditure, if any, was incurred by the successful party. The compensation seems to have been awarded on account of loss suffered due to the inability of the opposite party to harvest the crop by reason of proceedings under Section 115. The order for compensation cannot be treated as order for costs. To this extent the order, therefore, is unsustainable and must be set aside.

(3.) On the merits I see no reason to interfere. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence and I do not find that there is any justification for holding that the finding arrived at by the Court is contrary to the weight of evidence or that it is perverse. It cannot be, therefore, disturbed in revision.