HARI LAL SINGH Vs. DEO NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rules 88 and 84 at pp. 30 and 31 of the H.O.G.R. & Co. Crim. Vol. 1, should have been complied with. It appears from the S.D.O.'s report in the file that the grounds of motion were not supplied to him and that he had therefore nothing to explain. Apart from this, the Magistrate found that the first petition of the second party was "practically a denial of the right of public passage which was a question for determination under Section 139A, Criminal P.C., as has been done".

(2.) It is after his decision under Section 139A against the second party, he entertained their prayer for appointment of a jury; he supported this by citing Shamji Tricumdas V/s. Rammoye which is reported in and is in point.

(3.) This has escaped notice in the Court below, and I am not prepared to interfere in revision.