Skip to content


Sheikh Sajuddi Mandal and ors. Vs. F.L. Cork and E.N. Forbes and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.41
AppellantSheikh Sajuddi Mandal and ors.
RespondentF.L. Cork and E.N. Forbes and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act. v of 1898), section 145 - jurisdiction--refusal of magistrate to look at documentary evidence of title, whether question of jurisdiction--material irregularity in procedure and error of law--revision--high court, interference by. - .....by this court. the objection of the petitioners is that the magistrate refused to go into evidence of title, or rather to look at their documents of title. the refusal of the magistrate to look at the documents of title was expressed not on an application of the petitioners but on an application of the opposite party, but there was no question in this case, as to the claim of either party or the respective titles which they set up. the real question--and the only question--before the magistrate was, who was in actual possession of these under-ground minerals. it may be that the magistrate would have exercised a wiser discretion if he had passed orders under section 146, criminal procedure code, having regard to the fact that there was not very cogent evidence of possession on.....
Judgment:

Charles Chitty, J.

1. This is a Rule granted to the petitioners, who may be called the Mandals, calling on the District Magistrate of Burdwan and the opposite party, i.e., the Equitable Coal Company, to show cause why, on the grounds set out in the petition, the order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the Magistrate should not be set aside. The matter came before Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Richardson, and the learned Judges having differed in opinion the case has been laid before me for my opinion. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of both the learned Judges and yesterday heard arguments in the matter. It will be enough for me to say that I agree with Mr. Justice Richardson in the conclusion to which he has come, namely, that the Rule should be discharged, for the reasons which he has given. It appears to me that in this case there was no such material irregularity on the part of the Magistrate in the exercise of the jurisdiction, which he undoubtedly possessed, as would justify interference by this Court. The objection of the petitioners is that the Magistrate refused to go into evidence of title, or rather to look at their documents of title. The refusal of the Magistrate to look at the documents of title was expressed not on an application of the petitioners but on an application of the opposite party, but there was no question in this case, as to the claim of either party or the respective titles which they set up. The real question--and the only question--before the Magistrate was, who was in actual possession of these under-ground minerals. It may be that the Magistrate would have exercised a wiser discretion if he had passed orders under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, having regard to the fact that there was not very cogent evidence of possession on either side, but that was a matter in his discretion, and there undoubtedly was some evidence of possession on which he was competent to form an opinion. I, therefore, hold that the Rule should be discharged.


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