Skip to content


In Re: Khazi Muhammad Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad154
AppellantIn Re: Khazi Muhammad Khan and ors.
Excerpt:
- - that finding of fact cannot be traversed by revisional proceedings ;and, as clearly indicated by sub-section (4) of section 147, the aggrieved party should seek his remedy in the civil court, and nothing is gained by protracting magisterial proceedings which are intended to prevent an immediate breach of the peace......magistrate, hosur, directing them under section 147, criminal procedure code not to interfere with bull-play on a certain site on each recurring pongal. the point for determination was whether this right existed, and whether it had been exercised on the last occasion before the institution of the inquiry.2. the sub-divisional magistrate finds that the evidence of the interested parties hindus on one side, and mahomedans on the other, is directly conflicting but the sub-inspector is comparatively disinterested. he entirely supports the case of the hindus, and says that bull-play has always taken place in the vacant site. on examining the site itself and the documents adduced by either side, the sub-divisional magistrate comes to the same conclusion. that finding of fact cannot be.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. Petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hosur, directing them under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code not to interfere with bull-play on a certain site on each recurring Pongal. The point for determination was whether this right existed, and whether it had been exercised on the last occasion before the institution of the inquiry.

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate finds that the evidence of the interested parties Hindus on one side, and Mahomedans on the other, is directly conflicting but the Sub-Inspector is comparatively disinterested. He entirely supports the case of the Hindus, and says that bull-play has always taken place in the vacant site. On examining the site itself and the documents adduced by either side, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate comes to the same conclusion. That finding of fact cannot be traversed by revisional proceedings ; and, as clearly indicated by Sub-section (4) of Section 147, the aggrieved party should seek his remedy in the Civil Court, and nothing is gained by protracting Magisterial proceedings which are intended to prevent an immediate breach of the peace. Neither party contended under Section 145(5), that no dispute existed.

3. The fact that the Mahomedans had built drains On the site would not necessarily imply that there was no right to bull-play The order for costs under Section 148(3) follows the ordinary rule that costs follow result, but the learned Magistrate has not yet assessed them, at least, not in this order. When the amount is ascertained, the petitioners should be given a hearing: as to what may be fairly levied.

4. The petition is dismissed.


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