RAMNATH SHEONARAYAN Vs. SONAJI KRISHNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the complaint of the non-applicant Sonaji the applicant Ramnath was prosecuted and convicted under Section 447, Penal Code, of criminal trespass in a field and was fined Rs. 10. Within a week of the conviction the complainant applied to the learned Magistrate for an order under Section 522, Criminal P.C. restoring him to possession of the field from which he had been dispossessed. If the learned Magistrate had then read Section 522 a good deal of trouble would have been saved. Unfortunately he did not, and issued notice and eventually, passed the order asked for after the lapse of more, than one month, although Sub-section (1) of Section 22 clearly states that the order may, be passed at any time within one month from the date of the conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that he him self had jurisdiction to pass the order, apparently as a Court of revision, and therefore considered that there was no ground for interference with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Against that decision the present application for revision has been filed. In view of the clear words of Sub-section (1) of Section 522 that the Court may pass such an order within one, month from the date of the conviction I do not think that it had tiny jurisdiction to pass such an order, after the lapse of more than one month, and on that point there seems to be no difference of opinion. No appeal lay against the learned Magistrate's decision, as be was a Magistrate of the first class, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not a Court of revision; and had no power to interfere in revision. He therefore had no jurisdiction to make such an order himself

(2.) UNDER Sub-section (3) Of Section 522 an order under this section may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision. No limitation is laid down for such an order, and it appears to me that it was riot intended to pre-scribe any period of limitation. It obviously could not be one month from the date of conviction as an appellate or revisional Court seldom deals with a case within such period. On this point also there is fairly general agreement.

(3.) THE view taken by Beaumont C.J. in Savlaram Sadoba v. Dnyaneshwar Vishnu A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 148 was that a High Court hearing a revision application against an order restoring or refusing to restore possession is a Court of revision within the meaning of Section 522(3) and therefore has jurisdiction to make an order under Section 622(1).