BANKIM CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. RAMKRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Addl. Ses. J. of Manbhum-Singhbhum recommending that the order of the Sub-divisional Mag. of Dhalbhum in relation to a Proceeding under Section 147, Cri. P. C. be set aside. On the report of the Police that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between the parties with regard to certain plots of land said to be a playground, a proceeding under Section 147 was drawn up on 14-5-1948. In this proceeding Ramkrishna Singh & another were the first party, & Bankim Chandra Chakraverty was the second party, & on 22 9-1948, the case was transferred to one Mr. G. K. Prasad for disposal. On 17-3-1949, the second party, Bankim Chandra Chakravarty, filed a petn. before the learned Mag. in which he stated that a civil suit having been filed before the Subordinate Judge of Chaibassa with regard to the land in dispute, the proceeding might be stayed till the decision of that civil suit. It was further stated in this petn. that there was no likelihood of any breach of the peace on account of the conduct of the second party & that the right, which was in question in the proceeding, was pre-eminently a matter to be dealt with by the Civil Ct. On this petn. the learned Mag. passed the following order :

(2.) Mr. Mukharji referred to a decision of this Ct. in Sastu Sahu v. Nathuni Thakur, 6 P. L. T. 258 : (A. I. R. (11) 1924 Pat. 689 : 26 Cr. L. J. 105). But the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. What happened in that case was that a Mag. after examining the witnesses & after hearing the arguments of a case under Section 145 did not pass any order for about ten months. To quote from the judgment of Kulwant Sahay J.,

(3.) In my opinion, the order that has been passed by Mr. G. K. Prasad was an order which the was competent to pass according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, & the learned Sub-divisional Mag. had no jurisdiction to revive the proceeding & to transfer it to another Mag. for disposal As has been pointed out by this Cr. in Luti Singh v. Ramkirit Singh, A. I. R. (28) 1941 Pat. 105 : (42 Cr. L. J. 340), even a Dist. Mag. has no power to revise an order under Section 145 passed by a Mag. subordinate to him, & all that he can do is to call for the record under Section 435, & if he considers that the order should be interfered with, his duty, is to refer it to the H. C. It seems obvious that this learned Sub-divisional Mag. assumed a jurisdiction which he never possessed & at the instance of one who had been no party to the proceeding. I, therefore, agree with the learned Addl. Ses. J. that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Mag. should be set aside. The reference is accepted, & the order of the learned Mag. dated 6-9-1949, is set aside.