ALI BAGBAN Vs. GULAM MOHI-UD-DIN AHANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Sessions Judge Srinagar has made tills reference with the recommendation that the entire proceedings under Sections 145/107 Criminal P. C. launched by Ghulam Moh-ud-Din against Ali Bagban and others before the ADM Srinagar be quashed.

(2.) IT appears that an application under Sections 145/107 Criminal P. C. was presented by the said Uhulam Mohi-ud-Din before the ADM Srinagar wherein he named correctly Ail Bagban and his son Ghulam Mohd. Bagban. The parentage of a few other non-applicants was not mentioned in the application. The application stated that Ghulam Mohlud-Din was the owner of a three storeyed building (which contained a shop) situate at Safakadal. Ali Bagban was the tenant of this shop but he ' had surrendered his tenancy a few days earlier. Later on two days prior to the presentation of the application all the non-applicants took forcible possession of the shop which created a danger to public peace. It was prayed that proceeding under Sections 107/145 Criminal P. C. be taken against the non-applicants. A separate application for attachment of this shop was presented to the court on the same day, i. e. , 14-1-63. Some clerk in the ADM's Court recorded the statement of the applicant Ghulam Mohl-ud-Din and his witness Ghulam Mohd. Khan. On the same day an order of attachment of the shop was passed by the Magistrate. Notices under Sections 145/107, Criminal P. C. were ordered to be issued to the non-applicants. The proceedings went on for some time in the court of the ADM when a revision petition was presented by Ali Bagban before the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The learned Sessions Judge has made the recommendation that the entire proceedings be quashed.

(3.) THIS reference was argued before me more than once. On one hearing Mr. Sharma appearing for the landlord Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din stated that Ali Bagban had voluntalily surrendered possession of his shop to his client for which a document was executed by him. This document was presented by Mr. Sharma in this Court on 25-9-64. Mr. Sharma contends that on account of this document which is dated 9th January 1963 the tenant Ali Begban surrendered possession of the shop to the landlord Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din. If this document is correct, then I have to believe that on 9th January 1963 Ali Bagban surrendered his possession voluntarily, got some remission in rent from the landlord, and on the 12th again took forcible possession of the shop. The presentation of the document by Mr. Sharma here should in no way be construed that the document has become part of the original record. In view of the order I propose to make, the question of admissibility and production and genuineness of the document will be considered and decided by the trial court.