Skip to content


Natesa Naicken Vs. Raghavachari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad327; 85Ind.Cas.256
AppellantNatesa Naicken
RespondentRaghavachari and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the sub-inspector of police seized certain harvested crops apprehending a breach of the peace. the crops were first entrusted to the village munsiff and subsequently the crops were sold and the sale proceeds amounting to rs. 340 were deposited and the proceedings under section 145 were dropped with the consent of both parties. as there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace taking place, the question of possession was not decided. the magistrate then appears to have decided the question, as to which of the parties was to receive the money, which had been deposited and he decided that the money was to be handed over to the counter-petitioners, in miscellaneous case no. 62 of 1922. the effect of this was that he really was deciding a question, which was the subject of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Beasley, J.

1. The facts of these cases appeal to be that an application under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was pending and during the pendency of that application, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized certain harvested crops apprehending a breach of the peace. The crops were first entrusted to the Village Munsiff and subsequently the crops were sold and the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 340 were deposited and the proceedings under Section 145 were dropped with the consent of both parties. As there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace taking place, the question of possession was not decided. The Magistrate then appears to have decided the question, as to which of the parties was to receive the money, which had been deposited and he decided that the money was to be handed over to the counter-petitioners, in Miscellaneous Case No. 62 of 1922. The effect of this was that he really was deciding a question, which was the subject of dispute, between the parties, to be decided later on. In my view, he had no right whatever to make the order he did. But the proper order would have been for the money, which had been deposited, to remain on deposit, pending the decision, as to which of the parties was entitled to it. In my view, the order of the Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer should be cancelled. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition.


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