Skip to content


In Re: Bakir Alli Khan Sahib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.966
AppellantIn Re: Bakir Alli Khan Sahib
Excerpt:
.....coda (act v of 1898), sections 203, 437 - dismissal of complaint--order for further enquiry by district magistrate, grounds for--possibility of conviction on further enquiry--landlord and tenant--removal of crops by tenant--decision by revenue court, whether evidence at criminal trial--questions of civil nature--penal code (act xlv of 1908), section 379-madras estates land act (mad. i of 1908), sections 90, 212. - - 1. the charge in this case against the accused was that after the immoveable property bad been distrained, he removed the crops and thereby committed an offence under section 379, indian penal code, and section 212 of the madras estates land act. as i bad occasion to point out once before, unless the district magistrate can come to some definite conclusion upon the..........before the revenue 'divisional officer under section 90 of the madras estates land act is not evidence in the case, but he says later on that the result of the enquiry shows that there is ground for a further inquiry into the criminal charge. this latter dictum is not consistent with the first opinion. if the proceeding is not evidence it cannot be used for any purpose. apart from the conclusion come to at the revenue enquiry, no other evidence is indicated by the district magistrate which necessitates a further enquiry into the case. he himself points out that there has been a delay in the presentation of the petition to him. the question is one of civil rights between a landlord and his tenant, and it would be better to leave such a matter as this to be settled by the revenue court.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The charge in this case against the accused was that after the immoveable property bad been distrained, he removed the crops and thereby committed an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and Section 212 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate considered that there were prima facie grounds for a further inquiry into the charge and set aside the dismissal. As I bad occasion to point out once before, unless the District Magistrate can come to some definite conclusion upon the materials, he ought not to set aside the order of dismissal on the bare ground that it is possible on a further enquiry the accused may be convicted. The District Magistrate says rightly enough that the finding come to in a civil proceeding before the Revenue 'Divisional Officer under Section 90 of the Madras Estates Land Act is not evidence in the case, but he says later on that the result of the enquiry shows that there is ground for a further inquiry into the criminal charge. This latter dictum is not consistent with the first opinion. If the proceeding is not evidence it cannot be used for any purpose. Apart from the conclusion come to at the Revenue enquiry, no other evidence is indicated by the District Magistrate which necessitates a further enquiry into the case. He himself points out that there has been a delay in the presentation of the petition to him. The question is one of civil rights between a landlord and his tenant, and it would be better to leave such a matter as this to be settled by the Revenue Court than that it should be taken up by the Criminal Court. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the order, setting aside the dismissal, should be set aside.


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