IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Raju V.B. , J.
Appellants: Marotrao Ganpatrao Jadhav
Vs.
Respondent: The State and Anr.
Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 385 of 1959
Decided On: 12.02.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Y.V. Jakatdar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: N.L. abhyankar, Special Govt. Pleader, G.J. Ghate and S.G. Ghate, Advs.
Breach of Contract - Contract Law - The court referred to the provisions of the contract and relevant contract law principles to determine whether a breach had occurred. The court also considered the applicable laws regarding damages for breach of contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to provide services. The defendant failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the terms of the contract and the actions of the parties. It found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a breach of contract had occurred due to the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations.
Result: The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the breach of contract.
(2) The learned Magistrate first class, Amravati, issued process and without following the procedure for the trial of summons cases contained in Ss. 241 to 245, Cr.P.C. he passed an order under S. 249, Cr. P. C., holding that he did not think that any case under S. 447, I. P. C., can be said to be made out even prima facie. the order passwed by him is as follows:
"The case is perused. the dispute is obviously about possession. The perusal of the documents particularly te receipts show that there was no lease of the land as such, and that the right to take away the grass only was granted. Therefore the mention in the Patwari papers to the effect that the complainnt is a lessee does not appear to conform with the receipts.
In such circumstances, I do not think any case under S. 447 I.P.C. can be said to be made out even prima facie.
The accused is therefore discharged and the case filed under S. 249 Cr. P. C. File."
(3) The complainant then went in revision and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate holding that the Magistrate cannot pass an order under s. 249 without following the procedure of trial under Ss. 241 to 245 (Chapter XX), Cr.P.C. He also held that the provisions of S. 249 have to be resorted to in exceptional cases and where there are special circumstances justifying such an order. He also found fault with the order of the Magistrate in discharging the accused. According to the learned Sessions Judge, such an order in not at all warranted by the wording of S. 249, Cr. P. C. The learned sessions Judge also observed that if the learned Magistrate was of the view that no offence under S. 447 I.P.C., was even prima facie proved, the learned Magistrate should have followed the proper procedure under S. 242 to 244 and acquitted the accused but that he was not justified in passing an order under S. 249, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, passed an order under s. 436, Cr. P.C., setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate, and he directed further enquiry into the complaint.
(4) In this revision application the learned counsel for the applicant the accused challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the receipts filed with the challan show that no offence of criminal trespass has been committed and the magistrate was therefore perfectly justified in acting under S. 249, Cr.P.C. He further urged that the criminal intent necessry under S. 447, I.P.C., was absent. One of the grounds in the petition, namely that the learned Sessions Judge could not act under s. 436, Cr.P.C., in a case like this, was not argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
(5) A complaint under s. 447, I. P. C. is triable under Chapter XX, Cr.P.C., as a summons case, Ss. accusation should be stated to the accused and if the accused admits the truth of the accusation, he may be convicted but if he does not admit the truth of the accusation, the Magistrate should proceed to take the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses. After taking the evidence and examining the accused, the Magistrate may either acquit or convict the accused. S. 247 lays down the procedure when the complainant does not appear on the day appointed. S. 248 states the circumstances in which a complaint can be withdrawn. S. 249 reads thus:
"In any case instituted otherwise than upon complaint a Presidency Magistrate, a Magistrate of the first class, or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, any other Magistrate, may for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.