SULTAN HAJAM Vs. MUKHTA MAILK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 561A Cr. P.C. wherein the inherent jurisdiction has been invoked to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Kupwara dated 13-4-1999 passed by him in Revision Petition No. 15/97 against the order dated Sept. 20. 1997 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handwara whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner herein moved before him under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the application by holding: I have perused the entire record of the file and weighed the pros and cons of the case, I think that the report of Patwari and the extract of Khasra Giddwari are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the application of the applicant as is evident from the revenue record that Sona Malik is no where existing in the record and the applicant has neither possession over the said land and nor he ever in possession but he used the Court as a tool to take over the possession which is out of file hence I am of the opinion that the application 145 Cr. P.C. (1) is dismissed and the SHO P/S Handwara is directed to go on spot and handover the possession of the lam} to the non-applicants with intimation to this Court within a period of three days.T

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of the Magistrate that the claim with regard to the possession over the disputed land put forth by the petitioner was not proved because the affidavits filed by him were sworn before an oath commissioner and such an attestation of the affidavits was not according to the mandates of Section 539 of the Cr. P.C. He relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad Bhat and Anr. v. Ghulam Qadir Mir and Ors..

(3.) Both these orders have been challenged through the medium of this application on the following grounds: