1. In a dispute between one Suryanarayana Raju, who originally filed this criminal revision petition, and a large number of counter-petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram passed an order that certain items of property should be retained in the possession of the counter-petitioners, and the petitioner was prohibited from interfering with their enjoyment. After the filing of this petition, Suryanarayana Raju died; and his wife and sister were brought on record as his legal representatives. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for the petitioners argues that the order of the lower Court is not only a travesty of justice but also a gross abuse of the powers of the Court. In particular, he says that none of the facts stated by the counter-petitioners was satisfactorily proved and that in any event the Magistrate did not give a finding as to possession on the date of the preliminary order.
2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar that this Court had no jurisdiction to bring on record the legal representatives of the man who filed this petition; and he has quoted Alluri Subbaraju v. Alluri Rambhadra Raju (1916) 4 L.W. 440, where it was held that Section 145 (7), which permitted Magistrates to continue their enquiry despite the death of any of the parties, applies only to the proceedings of the Magistrates' Court and not to this Court in revision. The learned Judges said that they had been shown no authority for the extension of the purview of Section 145 (7) to other proceedings, such as the proceedings before them under the Charter Act. That revision petition had to be filed under the Charter Act; because at the time that case was decided, Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to proceedings under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. In 1923, however, Section 435 was extended to proceedings under Chapter XII and Section 561-A was enacted. As Section 435 was made to apply to Chapter XII also, it followed that from the date of the amendment, this Court, in dealing with revision applications against orders under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, had the wide powers of an appellate Court instead of the restricted powers conferred under Section 15 of the Charter Act. Section 561-A, too, gave very wide additional powers to the High Court. It says:
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
If there had been a gross miscarriage of justice in this case, then, to secure the ends of justice, it would have been necessary to have brought the present petitioners on record in order that the wrong order of the lower Court could be corrected. I think therefore that as the law now stands, this Court has ample power to bring legal representatives on record if the ends of justice require it.
* * * *
[Then his Lordship dealt with the case on the merits and dismissed the petition].