AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While making this recommendation the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar has relied upon Diwan Chand and others v. Emperor, 1929 AIR(Lah) 223. He has ignored a decision to the contrary of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Krishanan Krishnan v. Sankara Iyer Subramonia Iyen,1955 AIR(TC) 191. According to a later ruling of the Lahore High Court in Prem Kumar and another v. Benarsi Das, 1933 AIR(Lah) 409, it has been held that an attachment under Section 145(4) Criminal Procedure Code, may be made by taking possession of the property or by the appointment of a receiver. This was one of the recognised modes of attachment and any one of the usually recognised modes could be resorted to by the court for effecting the attachment of the subject-matter of the dispute in proceedings under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be observed further that all these rulings related to cases where the subject-matter of the dispute was immovable property and not the produce or profits to arises out of such property. In the Lahore ruling relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II shops were the subject-matter of the dispute. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has however, observed that in this case the receiver had been appointed of the crops standing on the agricultural land in dispute. Sub-section (8) of Section 145 of the Code gives the Magistrate the power to make such orders for the disposal or preservation of the standing crops as he may think fit. The order may appear to have been passed by the Magistrate to do substantial justice between the parties as the standing crops which was presumably ripe in the month of November, 1967, would have gone to waste if proper arrangements for the reaping of that crops had not been made by the appointment of a receiver. It would not be desirable for this Court to interfere in revision on technicalities of law where the Court has acted ex debito justitiae for doing substantial justice between the parties. Even otherwise there is authority for the proposition that the order of the learned trial Magistrate was in every manner legal and proper. The Magistrate may, however, proceed to come to a finding as to who was in possession of the land at the time of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure or within the two preceding months and to restore possession of the land to the party found entitled thereto.

(2.) Recommendation rejected.