BINDU JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 14-9-1990 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 64/90 by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the earlier stay granted in the Appeal itself was vacated.

(2.) The fact, in short, for the purpose of this revision is that the petitioner is claiming to be the employee of one Desein (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and under the terms and conditions, the petitioner being employee of Desein Ltd. was provided a quarter bearing No. 1077 in Sector IV of Bokaro Steel City belonging to Bokaro Steel Ltd. For unauthorised occupation of the quarter a proceeding bearing No. AE 96/87 was instituted as against the petitioner by the Estate Officer under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (to be called hereinafter as the Public Premises Act) and an order was passed for vacating the quarter in occupation of the petitioner. Against that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge No. 105/87. That too was dismissed and the order of the Estate Officer was confirmed. Subsequently the complaint case No. 157/88 was instituted by the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Ltd. as against the petitioner for unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarter under Section 11 of the said Act before the SDJM. Chas in which vide judgment dated 11-5-90 the petitioner was found guilty and then an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 64/90 was preferred in which earlier stay was granted but the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14-9-90 vacated the stay order and that has been challenged in this revision.

(3.) On the other hand it is the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarter of Bokaro Steel Ltd. and he had already been evicted. But still he made a wrongful entry for which a criminal case was instituted and the petitioner was evicted and now the quarter is in occupation of Bokaro Steel Ltd. So this petition is infructuous.