Skip to content


Dhobai Sahu and ors. Vs. Keshab Bag - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ266
AppellantDhobai Sahu and ors.
RespondentKeshab Bag
Cases Referred and Pravakar Adabaria v. Bishnu Adabaria
Excerpt:
.....would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. - if the spirit of the order passed by the learned magistrate shows that the party in whose favour possession has been found was all along in possession, in absence of a particular finding as to who was in possession on the date of the preliminary order, the net result of discussions made by him which clearly shows that he accepted the contention of a particular party in whose favour he has found possession, would also amount to a finding of possession on the date of the..........of the second party in a proceeding under section 145, criminal p. c. are the petitioners. the learned magistrate, after discussing the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the m embers of the second party were in possession of the property. the first party came up in revision to the court of the sessions judge, balangir. the learned sessions judge, without discussing the materials on record on merits, has remanded the case to the trial court on the ground that it was the bounden duty of the magistrate to find out as to who was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. after going through the judgment of the learned magistrate, i find that after considering the materials on record the has come to the conclusion that the members of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.K. Das, J.

1. Members of the second party in a proceeding Under Section 145, Criminal P. C. are the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, after discussing the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the m embers of the second party were in possession of the property. The first party came up in revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Balangir. The learned Sessions Judge, without discussing the materials on record on merits, has remanded the case to the trial Court on the ground that it was the bounden duty of the Magistrate to find out as to who was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. After going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, I find that after considering the materials on record the has come to the conclusion that the members of the second party were all along in possession. If the spirit of the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the party in whose favour possession has been found was all along in possession, in absence of a particular finding as to who was in possession on the date of the preliminary order, the net result of discussions made by him which clearly shows that he accepted the contention of a particular party in whose favour he has found possession, would also amount to a finding of possession on the date of the preliminary order, even though the same has not been mentioned in the operative portion of the order. This position has been set at rest in Dilinga Mallik v. Trinath Mallik, 1972 (1) Cut WR 868 and Pravakar Adabaria v. Bishnu Adabaria, Criminal Revn. No. 336 of 1975 disposed of on 8-4-1976 (Orissa). In view of the aforesaid position, the learned Sessions Judge should have come to the conclusion on merits about the question of possession as asserted by both sides. He has simply remanded the case only on the point that the Magistrate has not given a clear finding in the operative portion of the order as to which party was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. As has been decided by this Court in the cases stated above, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable. The learned Sessions Judge should go into the merits of the case and claims of the parties and should consider the documents and affidavits produced by both sides and find out whether the conclusion reached by the Magistrate is to 'be upheld or not. When the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the materials on record on merits, I think it is necessary that the case should, be remanded to him to consider the case on merits.

2. In the result, the revision is allowed. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of the Sessions Judge for disposal according to law, keeping in view the observations made above.


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