Skip to content


Karunamoy Mukherjee Vs. Kalika Prosad Bhadury - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 110 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Cal369
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145, 145(5), 517 and 520
AppellantKarunamoy Mukherjee
RespondentKalika Prosad Bhadury
Appellant AdvocateJagannath Gangopadhyay, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAsoke Chandra Sen, Adv.
Cases ReferredNarasayya v. Venkiah
Excerpt:
- .....as to the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops which had been sold by the receiver. the learned magistrate passed an order for payment of this money which amounted to almost rs. 2,000 to the second party as he was of opinion that the documents produced before him showed that the second party had title to the crops.2. an application against this order before the learned sessions judge was unsuccessful.3. we are now asked to interfere with the order passed by learned magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. obviously, unless he could be considered to have exercised jurisdiction under section 517, criminal p. c., the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order as regards the disposal of the sale proceeds after the proceedings had.....
Judgment:

Das Gupta, J.

1. The proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., which were drawn up on the application of the present petitioner were 'dropped' on 22nd December 1949, on an application by the petitioner that there was no longer any likelihood of any apprehension of the breach of the peace over the possession of the property. The question then arose as to the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops which had been sold by the receiver. The learned Magistrate passed an order for payment of this money which amounted to almost Rs. 2,000 to the second party as he was of opinion that the documents produced before him showed that the second party had title to the crops.

2. An application against this order before the learned Sessions Judge was unsuccessful.

3. We are now asked to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Obviously, unless he could be considered to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 517, Criminal P. C., the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order as regards the disposal of the sale proceeds after the proceedings had been dropped and he had not come to any conclusion as regards the party entitled to possession.

4. Whether such an order could be passed under Section 517, Criminal P. C., depends really on the answer to the question whether when the proceedings are terminated by an order of cancellation passed under Sub-section (5) of Section 145, Criminal P. C., it can be said that the enquiry in Section 145 proceedings is concluded. In a case which came up before this Court very many years ago, an order directing the first party to reap the crops after the proceedings had been dropped was claimed to have been passed under Section 517, Criminal P. C. This Court said, 'If that be so, we have jurisdiction to interfere under Section 520 of the same Code' and the Court for reasons recorded cancelled the order passed. It will be noticed that the Court did not discuss or determine the question whether in fact such an order could be passed under Section 517 of the Code, but proceedings on the assumption that this was so, held that the Court could interfere under Section 520, Criminal P. C., and the order was passed.

5. In my opinion, the cancellation of proceedings cannot be considered to amount to a conclusion of the enquiry. I think that the word 'concluded' in Section 517, Criminal P. C., is used to mean 'conclusion after full hearing'. We are fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Narasayya v. Venkiah, 49 Mad. 232 : (A. I. R. (12) 1925 Mad. 1252 : 27 Cr. L. J. 95), where it was held that when a Magistrate has dropped a proceeding, he cannot pass any order in favour of either party as regards the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops raised on the land in dispute but should keep the same in deposit pending orders of Civil Court.

6. I am, therefore, of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction. I would, therefore, set aside that order and direct that the money be kept in deposit till one of the parties has established his right by suitable proceedings in the Civil Court. The Rule is accordingly made absolute.

Lahiri J.

I agree.


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