Skip to content


Kasinathan and anr. Vs. Ramasami Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ1534
AppellantKasinathan and anr.
RespondentRamasami Pillai and ors.
Cases ReferredSubramania Chetty v. Ganeshan Pillai
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......on 21-12-1972 by the appellate court. p. w. 1 filed an application under section 522(1) of the code of criminal procedure before the court of the sub-magistrate for restoration of possession of the house. nothing ensued. p. w. 1 again moved the court of the district magistrate (j), kumbakonam for an order, presumably under section 522 (1) of the code of criminal procedure. ultimately, the district magistrate passed an order on 5-7-1973 restoring possession of the house to p. w. 1. this present petition is directed against that order.2. section 522(1), criminal procedure code prescribes one month from the date of the conviction of the accused for passing an order to restore the person dispossessed to possession of the property. such a power does not obviously vest in the court of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. The two petitioners contest the correctness of the order of the District Magistrate, Kumbakonam dated 5-7-1973 restoring possession of the house mentioned in the complaint to P. W. 1. A few dates are pertinent for appreciating the facts. P. W. 1, on 4-9-1972, filed a complaint which ended in the conviction of one of the petitioners and two others. The convictions of two accused including one of the petitioners was confirmed on 21-12-1972 by the appellate court. P. W. 1 filed an application under Section 522(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Sub-Magistrate for restoration of possession of the house. Nothing ensued. P. W. 1 again moved the court of the District Magistrate (J), Kumbakonam for an order, presumably under Section 522 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the District Magistrate passed an order on 5-7-1973 restoring possession of the house to P. W. 1. This present petition is directed against that order.

2. Section 522(1), Criminal Procedure Code prescribes one month from the date of the conviction of the accused for passing an order to restore the person dispossessed to possession of the property. Such a power does not obviously vest in the court of appeal, confirmation, revision or reference under Section 522(3) of the Code. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Govinda Menon and Krishnaswami Nayudu, JJ., in Subramania Chetty v. Ganeshan Pillai 1950 Mad WN Cr 101 : AIR 1950 Mad 665 held that it is not open to initiate proceedings by application to the Sessions Judge under Sub-clause (3) of Section 522 and ask for a relief which the trial court could not have given after a month of the disposal of the criminal case. They further held that the Court of Appeal, confirmation, revision or reference in Section 522(3) can refer only to the Court dealing with the correctness or otherwise of the original conviction and not a court to which an appeal, review, confirmation or reference would ordinarily lie. In view of this legal position, I have no hesitation in quashing the order of the District Magistrate dated 5-7-1973 restoring possession of the house to P. W. 1. The criminal revision petitions are allowed.


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