SHAH YUNUS Vs. BAJRANG MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference involves the interpretation of the Second Proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. which for the sake of brevity will be referred to hereinafter as "the Code"

(2.) The sole question for determination, therefore, in this case, is, whether the words "two months", occurring in the expression ''within two months next before, the date of such order", used in the Second Proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145 of the Code, mean prior to the date when the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code is made, or, prior to the order made under Section 144 of the Code, which preceded and ultimately resulted in the conversion of the said proceeding into one under Section 145 (1) of the Code.

(3.) Another question, which is allied to the above question and which would arise, if the first interpretation to it is found to be its correct answer, as to how possession within two months prior to the order under Section 145 (1) is to be determined if it is preceded by an order under Section 144 of the Code, which is a fore-runner of the subsequent proceeding under Section 145(1),