Natesa Naicken v. Raghavachari And Others

Natesa Naicken v. Raghavachari And Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Criminal Revision No. 580 Of 1923, (Criminal Revision Petition No. 462 Of 1923) & Civil Revision Petition No. 613 Of 1923 | 19-08-1924

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.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BEASLEY
Eq Citations
  • 85 IND. CAS. 256
  • AIR 1925 MAD 327
  • LQ/MadHC/1924/385
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 145 and 146 — Application under S. 145 pending — Crops seized and sold and sale proceeds deposited — Proceedings under S. 145 dropped with consent of both parties — Magistrate deciding question as to which of the parties was to receive the money deposited — Proper order would have been for the money to remain on deposit, pending decision as to which of the parties was entitled to it — Order of Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled (Para 1)