JAI KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two references by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, which arise in the following circumstances:

(2.) BAXARAM made a complaint against Jaikishen and another on 22nd September, 1950, that the way to his field lay through Jaikishen's filed but the latter was obstructing that way, and, therefore, applied under sec. 133 Cr. P. C. to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Didwana, for action being taken in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector Police. Didwana, for necessary action by his order passed on the same day. On the 14th October, 1950, the Sub-Inspector instituted a complaint against Jaikishen and Jagguram, another person whose field lay in the neighbourhood of BAXARAM, to the effect that BAXARAM's way lay through Jaikishen's and Jaggu's field, that the latter had blocked it and that there was a danger of the breach of the peace and so action be taken under sec. 133 Cr. P. C. Thereupon on 17th October, 1950, notices were directed to be issued to Jaikishen and Jagguram to show cause why the way in question be not thrown open. On 30th October, 1950, Jaikishen filed his reply. His case was that there was no way through his field leading to BAXARAM's field. He also alleged that there was another way for BAXARAM and that the latter only wanted to harass Jaikishen by giving up that way and carrying out a new way through his field. Jagguram did not appear at all nor did he file any reply. The learned Magistrate fixed the case for evidence on 29th November, 1950. He also noted that an inspection of the site appeared to be necessary. It appears that no evidence was recorded on any of the dates on which the case came up subsequently and the learned Magistrate inspected the site on the 20th June, 1951, and passed his order which is now been challenged before me.