GRAM PANCHAYAT GODAWAS Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD NEEMKA THANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, sikar, dated the 31st October, 1961. It relates to a peculiar case of its own kind, because the parties arrayed against each other are the Gram Panchayat Godawas and the Municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana.

(2.) ON the 19th of April, 1961, the Station House Officer, Neem-ka-Thana presented a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana for taking proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C. against the said parties. The municipal Board, Neem-ka-Thana was named as Party No. 1 and the Gram panchayat Godawas was named as Party No. 2. It was stated in the said report that both the parties were holding cattle fairs at a place called Jodla Johra at neem-ka-Thana, that since both the parties wanted to hold fairs on the same dates, there was a likelihood of the breach of peace, that a separate report to bind down both the parties for keeping peace was already made under Section 107, Cri. P. C. and that another proceeding under section 145, Cri P. C. should also be taken against them. This report was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Magistrate First class, Neem-ka-Thana, on 20-4-61. On 21-4-61, the said Magistrate drew up a preliminary order and directed both the parties to put in their written statements. At the same time, he passed an order for the attachment of the property in dispute and appointed the Tehsildar, Neem-ka-Thana, as receiver and directed him to take into his possession the papers relating to the sale of the cattle.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the Gram Pan-chavat Presented a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Tudge, Sikar. The learned Judge has reported that the dispute between the parties did not relate to a particular piece of land, that both of them had their separate mela, camps and the real controversy between them was about attracting the customers to their respective camps. In his opinion, the learned Magistrate was not correct in proceeding under Section 145, Cri. P C. and the proper thing for him was to take action under Section 147, cri. P. C. He has recommended that the Magistrate should be directed to convert the proceedings into one under Section 147, Cri. P. C. and to return the movables attached by him.