HARIPODA MARDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order dated 23rd August, 2002 passed in Cr. Revision No. 6 (C) of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella allowed the revision application after setting aside the order dated 31-7-2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saraikella in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2000 passed under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure restraining both parties from going over the lands in question and the Officer-in-charge Chandll was appointed as Receiver.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge) committed error in allowing the revision application after setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who rightly attached the land in question after being satisfied about the emergency and likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace. It is further argued that the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of the land in question as there was apprehension of breach of peace and If such attachment is not made, there is chance of bloodshed and hence after finding emergency, the Court below attached the land in question but the learned Additional Sessions Judge without appreciating the police report in proper way passed the order impugned, which is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of Gaya Singh v. Doman Singh, reported in AIR 1979 Patna 246 : (1979 Cri LJ 1110). It is further submitted that attachment even without hearing the parties is permissible and till the conclusion of the proceeding the attachment ought to be continued to avoid any untoward incident for the said land.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the Court below passed the order without any evidence.