HARI SINGH Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of filing this criminal revision has challenged the order dated March 7, 1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the order dated January 3, 1997, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barnala, was set aside.

(2.) The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, had ordered the removal of the encroachment of the site. After visiting the spot and after the site-inspection he was of the considered view that there was encroachments, which were to be removed. This order was, however, not maintained and set aside.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, the learned counsel representing the respondent. The case, as such, could not be decided merely on the basis of spot inspection, in fact some evidence could have been recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before coming to the conclusion 'whether there was any encroachment, if so, by whom.' Thus, under these circumstances the fact itself requires a probe and which can be considered only on the strength of evidence to be led by the parties, to which the learned counsel for the parties agree.