Skip to content


In Re: Rangubai Gururao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 88 of 1921
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom29; (1921)23BOMLR844
AppellantIn Re: Rangubai Gururao
Excerpt:
.....v of 1898), section 133-conditional order-absolute order after a lapse of years.;where a conditional order passed in 1916 was made absolute in 1920, the high court treated the final order as resting on no conditional order and reversed it. - - 2. the order complained of was made on the 11th september 1930. but the proceeding of which that order purported to be the conclusion, was a conditional order under section 138 made by the sub divisional magistrate of bijapur on the 12th february 1919: that, order directed the accused to remove obstruction that they had made to the channel by which water flowed off the public road from marol to dhanar within one month, or to appear to-show cause in the court of the first class magistrate &t hungund, on the 14th august 1916. the petitioner aver..........revision of: the order made under section 187 of the criminal procedure code by the first class magistrate, bijapur.2. the order complained of was made on the 11th september 1930. but the proceeding of which that order purported to be the conclusion, was a conditional order under section 138 made by the sub divisional magistrate of bijapur on the 12th february 1919: that, order directed the accused to remove obstruction that they had made to the channel by which water flowed off the public road from marol to dhanar within one month, or to appear to-show cause in the court of the first class magistrate &t; hungund, on the 14th august 1916. the petitioner aver that she did so, and after some evidence was taken, the matter was dropped. it was suddenly revived four years later was the.....
Judgment:

Pratt, J.

1. This is an application for revision of: the order made under Section 187 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the first Class Magistrate, Bijapur.

2. The order complained of was made on the 11th September 1930. But the proceeding of which that order purported to be the conclusion, was a conditional order under Section 138 made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Bijapur on the 12th February 1919: That, order directed the accused to remove obstruction that they had made to the channel by which water flowed off the public road from Marol to Dhanar within one month, or to appear to-show cause in the Court of the First Class Magistrate &t; Hungund, on the 14th August 1916. The petitioner aver that she did so, and after some evidence was taken, the matter was dropped. It was suddenly revived four years later was the absolute order was made on the 11th September 192Q. The, Government Pleader says that the petitioner failed to appear on the 14th August 1916, but if that were so, one would that the conditional order would have been confirmed on $ date. The record is blank as to events between 1916 and 1920.

3. Now the whole object of the procedure enacted under Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code is for the Magistrates to make speedy orders and deal speedily with cases where a. public nuisance has been committed, and it is for this reason that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 133, Sub-section 2. The condition of the road in 1920 must have been; quite different from that in 1916 when the original order was made. It was, therefore, improper to revive in 1920 a proceeding which had begun in 1916. If there was nuisance in 1920, the proceeding should have been commenced de novo under a 183, We treat the order under Section 137 as resting on no conditional order under Section 133, and, therefore, reverse it so far as it affects the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //