Skip to content


Kailash Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Kunja Behari Poddar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR24Cal391
AppellantKailash Chandra Pal and anr.
RespondentKunja Behari Poddar
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Gobind Chandra Das I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 145 - authority of district magistrate--sub-divisional magistrate. - .....august 1895 was entirely based (though he does not say so in so many words) upon the order of the district magistrate of the 23rd july 1895. the question then arises whether the district magistrate had authority in law to direct the sub-divisional officer (sic) institute proceedings under section 145. we think there is nothing in the code of criminal procedure, or in any other law, authorizing the magistrate of the district in this case to direct proceedings being taken under section 145. the officer to whom such direction was given was a sub-divisional officer, and it was entirely discretionary with him either to take proceedings or not under that section as he thought proper. we have already said that, so far as he was concerned, he was of opinion that proceedings should be taken.....
Judgment:

Ghose and Gordon, JJ.

1. We think that this rule should be made absolute, upon the first ground mentioned in the order of this Court, dated the 27th July last.

2. It is quite clear that, so far as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narain-gunge is concerned, he thought that no proceedings should be taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the order that he made on the 19th October 1894 was an order under Section 144 of the Code, prohibiting Isaff from interfering with the land which is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties; and we further find that on the 4th June 1895 he made another order under the same Section (144), similarly prohibiting Kunja Behari, the opposite party before us, from interfering with the land in question. The Magistrate of the district, however, on the 23rd July 1895, was of opinion that it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to institute proceedings under Section 145, and he accordingly modified the said order of the 4th June 1895. [394] Acting upon this order of the Magistrate of the district, the Sub-Divisional Officer, on the 14th August 1895, instituted proceedings under Section 145. That order runs thus : ' Whereas it has been made to appear to me that a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace is likely to take place between Kunja Behari Poddar on one side and Kailash Chandra Pal and Isaff on the other, regarding possession to a garden bounded as follows: North by Khajobaigora khal, south by another khal, east by Gora khal of Bari Bedya-nanda and Isaff arable (Tangita) land, west by Bugmuchi khal, it is ordered that the above parties put in written statements in person or by pleader on the 30th August 1895 regarding their respective claims of actual possession about the said garden with any other evidence they may have to offer, and that until the Court orders what party is in possession, no party shall go to the said disputed land under penalty of prosecution.' Now there was no police report Or other information before the Sub-Divisional Officer at the time, upon which he could take proceedings under Section 145; and, indeed, it is patent that his proceeding of the 14th August 1895 was entirely based (though he does not say so in so many words) upon the order of the District Magistrate of the 23rd July 1895. The question then arises whether the District Magistrate had authority in law to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer (sic) institute proceedings under Section 145. We think there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in any other law, authorizing the Magistrate of the District in this case to direct proceedings being taken under Section 145. The officer to whom such direction was given was a Sub-Divisional Officer, and it was entirely discretionary with him either to take proceedings or not under that section as he thought proper. We have already said that, so far as he was concerned, he was of opinion that proceedings should be taken under Section 144, and not under Section 145; and we think that the District Magistrate had no authority over him in this respect. Queen-Empress v. Gobind Chandra Das I.L.R. 20 Cal. 520.

3. The rule will accordingly be made absolute.


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