SAMRATH Vs. KHEMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused for the charge under section 406 in a criminal case in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh. By the order dated 14-7-81 the learned Magistrate ordered for issuance of notice to the accused to produce the disputed she-buffalo in the court. On 14-7-81 on the request of the complainant the learned Magistrate issued an order for producing the disputed she-buffalo in the court. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. THE notice at the admission stage was issued to the respondents. Mr. Arora has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No 1 Khemji the complainant request of the parties the petition was finally heard.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that provisions of section 91 Cr. P. C are not applicable to the accused petitioner and therefore the impugned order suffers from an illegality. To substantiate his case the learned counsel placed reliance on the principles enunciated in the case of Badya v. Mst. Kamli Bai (1 ). It has been submitted by Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent that the scope of section 91 is wide enough to include the accused person also and in case he has any objection in complying the directions issued by the court he should request the court to set aside the order instead of seeking relief from this Court.

(3.) IN view of the settled proposition of law I find no justification in the learned Magistrate issuing direction to the accused to produce the disputed she-buffalo in the court. The application under section 482 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. .