Skip to content


Narayan Bajoria and ors. Vs. Fagu Swain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 89 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Ori240
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145 and 344; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 379
AppellantNarayan Bajoria and ors.
RespondentFagu Swain
Appellant AdvocateP.C. Chatterji and ;B.K. Ray, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM.S. Rao and ;S.C. Das, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........of some lands which are the subject-matter of proceedings under section 145 cr. p. c. fagu swain is alleged to be the tenant of some of the cosharers and claims to have raised the crop which was removed by the other cosharers. a criminal case under section 379 i. p. c. started at the instance of fagu swain is now pending against the rival landlords and their servants. the trying magistrate was moved for adjourning the case till the disposal of the proceedings under section 145, cr. p. c. that prayer having been rejected the petitioners have now come up to this court and renewed their prayer for staying the proceedings in the theft case until the disposal of the section 3.45 proceedings. the dispute is essentially one between rival landlords relating to possession of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panigrahi, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties. This is a fit case which, in my opinion, ought to be allowed. There has been some dispute among the co-sharer-landlords of some lands which are the subject-matter of proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. Fagu Swain is alleged to be the tenant of some of the cosharers and claims to have raised the crop which was removed by the other cosharers. A criminal case under Section 379 I. P. C. started at the instance of Fagu Swain is now pending against the rival landlords and their servants. The trying magistrate was moved for adjourning the case till the disposal of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. That prayer having been rejected the petitioners have now come up to this court and renewed their prayer for staying the proceedings in the theft case until the disposal of the Section 3.45 proceedings. The dispute is essentially one between rival landlords relating to possession of the land, from which the crop appears to have been removed.

The question whether the removal would amount to theft would depend upon who was in actual possession of the lands at the time of the alleged removal. In these circumstances it is not fair that the parties should be harassed in respect of the same dispute in two separate proceedings.

I would, therefore, direct that the proceedings inthe case under Section 379 I. P. C. should be stayed tillthe disposal of the miscellaneous case under Section 145,Cr. P. C. The revision is accordingly allowed.


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