JAMUNA PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. RAMPRIT SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been placed before a Division Bench as it raises a point of considerable importance and since there appear to be apparently conflicting decisions of single Judges of this Court.

(2.) On 11th of July, 1951, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Purnea in which the petitioners were the first party and the opposite party were the second party on the ground that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace between them with respect to certain land. At the time, some jute crops were standing on the disputed land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate accordingly ordered for the harvesting of this crop and directed that it would be kept in the custody of one Munshi Gope, who was one of the second party in the proceeding. It appears that the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was not disposed of on its merits, but it was dropped after the expiry of two months. But again a fresh proceeding was started on the very same day. It is surprising that even this second proceeding as also some other successive proceedings were similarly dropped and then initiated and dropped again. This procedure continued till November, 1952, without any final orders having been passed with respect to the dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party.

(3.) Then, on 24th of November, 1952, on an application made by one of the parties, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate commenced a proceeding under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the restoration of the jute crop which had been harvested and kept in the custody of Munshi Gope, and an enquiry was conducted by another Magistrate whose report showed that the first party had grown the crop and were thus entitled to appropriate it. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, accepting this report, directed that the entire quantity of jute be now delivered to the first party. As against this order, the second party moved the Sessions Judge under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the validity of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 517 of the Code in respect of the usufruct of a piece of land which had been the subject matter of a dispute in a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, thus contending that the provisions of Section 517 of the Code did not apply to a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code.