Skip to content


In Re: Lachman and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR22All267
AppellantIn Re: Lachman and anr.
Excerpt:
.....135 - order of magistrate for removal of unlawful obstruction--application for appointment of a jury--effect of verdict of jury. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which..........have been a case for interference in revision. but instead of adopting this course the applicants asked the magistrate to appoint a jury, that being the third alternative given by section 135 of the code. the magistrate nominated the two men named by the applicants, namely, bachu lal and ganesh prasad narain. he also appointed two men whose names were supplied by the opposite side, and he appointed as umpire one munshi nazir ali, manager of the dubari estate. four persons, including the umpire, agreed in finding that the order complained of was a reasonable and proper order. the fifth person did not for some reason join the jury, and did not concur in the verdict. amongst the four persons who agreed in finding that the magistrate's order was a reasonable and proper one were bachu lal.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. An order was issued to the applicants by a duly empowered Magistrate, directing them under the provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remove an unlawful obstruction from a road which wag said to be a public road, or to appear within a time fixed and move to have the order set aside. The applicants put in a petition, in which they denied that there ever was a road as asserted by the other side. Had they adhered to this position, and had the Magistrate, without considering whether the applicants' plea was or was not a bond fide claim of right, passed the order complained against, it would have been a case for interference in revision. But instead of adopting this course the applicants asked the Magistrate to appoint a jury, that being the third alternative given by Section 135 of the Code. The Magistrate nominated the two men named by the applicants, namely, Bachu Lal and Ganesh Prasad Narain. He also appointed two men whose names were supplied by the opposite side, and he appointed as umpire one Munshi Nazir Ali, Manager of the Dubari Estate. Four persons, including the umpire, agreed in finding that the order complained of was a reasonable and proper order. The fifth person did not for some reason join the jury, and did not concur in the verdict. Amongst the four persons who agreed in finding that the Magistrate's order was a reasonable and proper one were Bachu Lal and Ganesh Prasad Narain, the two persons nominated by the applicants. I am asked to interfere in revision on the ground that there was a disputed question of title, and that therefore there was no jurisdiction to pass the order. On the facts set forth above I decline to do this and reject the application.


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