B B BISWAS Vs. MUCHIRAM MAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum re- commending that. the order passed by the Magistrate on 16 June 1938 should be set aside and the Magistrate directed to inquire into the allegations made in the petition of the Manager of the Sijua Colliery and to dispose of the matter according to law. The learned Sessions Judge has summarized the facts as follows: It appears that Messrs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., have got a colliery in mauza Sijua which is called Sijua colliery. There are inclines in the mauza for working out the colliery. One drain which brings down water from the north to the south passes between inclines Nos. 8 and 9 of the Sijua colliery and it runs into a tank called Choudhury bandb situate on plots Nos. 90 and 91 of mauza Sijua having an embankment on its southern side.

(2.) The Company have got lands adjoining the Choudhuri-bandh. In 1933 a case under Section 147, Criminal P. C, was filed by the Manager of the Sijua colliery against Muchiram Mahata and others of mauza Sijua. That case was compromised and the most important term of the compromise was that the second party, that is Muchiram Mahata and others, will open a passage in the western corner of the embankment sufficiently large so as not to cause water to enter into or accumulate on the land of the colliery and that if the water passage is closed for any reason the second party will open it and on their default the first party will get it opened through the help of the Court. On 14 May 1938, the Manager made a complaint against Muchiram Mahata and others that the flow of water through the passage mentioned in the compromise had been stopped and prayed for proceedings to be drawn up under Section 147, Criminal P.C. A police enquiry was directed and on receipt of the police report the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 16 June 1938: Report seen. The report refers to a previous compromise between the parties. The compromise petition is on record. Para. 2 of the petition deals with the obstruction of the fain which was existing at the time. Para. 3 made provision for future obstructions. This paragraph clearly shows that the petitioner can have the drain cleared only through Civil Court. This is all the more patent because no mandatory order under any of the preventive Secs.can be passed. Hence, I find that this is not a proper case under Section 147, Criminal P.C., and therefore no action is necessary. The petitioner may have his grievances redressed in proper Court.

(3.) I may mention at once that the translation by the learned Magistrate of "adalat" as Civil Court seems to be erroneous because as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, "adalat" may be a Criminal Court also. It is against the above order of the Magistrate that the company moved the learned Sessions Judge who has made the recommendation in the terms mentioned in the beginning of this judgment. Reference has been made to the case in Ram Dhan Puri V/s. Barhamadeo Lal A.I.R (1929) . Pat. 351 and I am struck by the similarity of the facts of that case to those of the case in hand. But on the merits it is apparent that in the case referred to the Magistrate had taken steps under Section 147, Criminal P.C. whereas in the present case the Magistrate has refused to initiate proceedings under the Section as prayed for by the Manager of the Sijua Colliery.