SHOBH NATH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the petitioner, who is the first party in a proceeding, initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short' the Code') has prayed for quashing the order dated 15 -7 -1995 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabbhua, whereby he has allowed the revision application filed by the Opposite Parties after setting aside the final order passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the lands in dispute was declared in favour of the petitioner,

(2.) HAVING regard to the order propose to be passed in this case, it is not necessary, to mention the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the learned Magistrate has declared the possession of the petitioner with respect to the lands, in dispute, details whereof has been mentioned in the order of the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite parties filed a revision petition which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 459 of 1995. The revisional Court after hearing the parties, and on consideration of the materials on record set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that relevant documents have not been considered while declaring the possession in favour of the Opposite Party. After hearing the parties and going through the order under challenge, I do not find any illegality in the same. But, at the same time when the final order has been set aside only on the ground of the non -consideration of evidence on record; in that event the learned Judge should have remitted the case back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law particularly when the revisional Court failed to declare the possession in favour of either party. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, appearing for the Opposite Party submits that the learned Magistrate, in fact, has declared the possession of the opposite party on the basis of evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and as such flits Court can itself declare the question of possession with respect to the lands in dispute. The revisional Court, as stated above, has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground of non -consideration of the evidence recorded and as such the learned trial Court is to consider the evidence on record in accordance with law. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate now proceed in the light of the observation, made by the revisional Court and pass a fresh order in accordance with law as early as possible preferable within six months without giving unnecessary adjournments sought for on behalf of the parties, It is made char that if the proceeding is not concluded within the time aforesaid, the very initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall stand quashed.