MUTHUSWAMI SERVAIGARAN Vs. THANGAMMAL AYIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been posted before us for a decision upon two preliminary points.

(2.) The facts are that the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Pattukottai, in exercise of his powers under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the petitioners to vacate the Nagaram Palace building forthwith on the ground that the occupation caused annoyance and obstruction to the Zamindarini and was likely to cause an immediate disturbance of the public tranquillity and a riot. In accordance with this order the Palace was vacated and an application was subsequently made under Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore to rescind the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Pattukottai. This application he rejected. The original order was dated 23 January, 1929 and the order rejecting the petition was on the 23 February. The petitioners then presented this revision petition. When it came on for hearing before Reilly, J., in view of the question raised, namely, whether the High Court has power to interfere in revision with orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and the importance of that question he directed that the petition should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. Another question raised before him was whether the petition is out of time because orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, are in force only for two months. This question also has been left for this Bench to decide.

(3.) Dealing with the latter question first, on the assumption that the Sub-divisional Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction in passing the order, it cannot be questioned that, as the two months have now elapsed since the order was passed, the High Court has nothing to revise. The question as to whether or not the Sub-divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to make the order is one of the matters raised in the petition but we are not disposing of that question here as that is not one of the preliminary questions we have to decide. In view of the fact that the High Court has now no order to revise the determination of the larger and more important question as to whether such orders are revisable would be unnecessary but for the fact that two petitions which came on recently for hearing before Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., were ordered to stand over pending the decision by us of this point and we accordingly allowed the matter to be argued.