LAWS(PVC)-1947-2-91

SHAMRAO DEORAO MARATHE Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On February 12, 1947
Shamrao Deorao Marathe Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision against the order passed in Cri. Revn. No. 110 of 1945 of the Court of Mr. M.D. Deoras, Sessions Judge, Wardha, decided on 19-7-1946. The applicants in the case have been bound over for Rs. 200 with one surety each for a period of one year to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under Section 107, Criminal P.C. This revision application raises almost one point and that is the tenability of Section 107 proceedings in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts are that one Mt. Anjir Bai died on 14-6-1945. Her husband named Zapa owned two fields Nos. 8/2 and 15/1 of mauza Poti in Khel B of patti No. 1 in the Hinganghat tahsil. After Zapa's lifetime Anjira Bai entered into possession and continued in possession of these two holdings till her death. After her death disputes broke out between the applicants on the one hand and one Suryabhan on the other. This Suryabhan is the son of Zapa's sister. Applicants 1 to 5 are some distant relatives of the deceased Zapa, and claimed to be his heirs. Suryabhan lived with Anjira Bai and after her lifetime, it is alleged by the prosecution, he entered into possession of these holdings and continued cultivation thereof. According to him the applicants were obstructing him and wanting to take forcible possession of these agricultural lands and hence on 28-8-1945 he filed an application in the criminal Court under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The trial Court sent the papers to the police for enquiry and report and the police put up a challan under Section 107, Criminal P.C., against the applicants, (non-applicants in the trial Court and two others). These two other persons have been discharged and therefore there is no need to mention them any further. The trial Court bound over the applicants as stated above, and that order was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this application for revision.

(3.) IT is thus argued on the strength in Baljit Singh v. Bhoju Ghose (08) 35 Cal. 117, that in such cases the Court is compelled by the terms of Section 145, Criminal P.C., to go on with the trial and that the directions in that section are mandatory. It is undoubtedly true that in that case it was held by the Calcutta High Court that Section 145 proceedings cannot be converted into proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The view taken in the Calcutta High Court case was, however, dissented from in Emperor v. Thakur Pande (12) 34 All. 449, and later a Pull Bench of the same Court in Emperor v. Abbas (12) 39 Cal. 150, took a view which is contrary to that stated in Baljit Singh v. Bhoju Ghose (08) 35 Cal. 117. Recently in Madho Singh v. Emperor , the view taken in Dhuma v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Nag. 54, has been approved. Following therefore, these later cases, I hold that the proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., are not without jurisdiction.