JUDGMENT - G.R. MAJITHIA, J.:---Vishwanath Kashinath Virkar and 6 others (hereinafter referred to as "original party No. 2") have challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 167 of 1993 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in this Criminal Writ Petition.

2. The factual matrix is as under :--

R.B. Mane, Assistant Police Inspector, submitted a report on March 20, 1993 to the Executive Magistrate, Koregaon, stating therein that property bearing No. C.T.S. 1933, comprising of a godown and a shop, is in the possession of Nitinchand Keshavji Gala and Narayan Keshav Virkar (hereinafter referred to as "original Party No. 1"); that on March 19, 1993, original Party No. 2 entered into the shop and godown by force and damaged and threw away the articles lying therein; that original Part No. 2 has also closed the door opening towards the godown by fixing a lock and wooden battens on the door; that original Party No. 1 lodged a complaint on the basis of which proceedings under sections 107 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter "the Code") were initiated against the parties; that the parties could not arrive at a compromise and proceedings under section 145 of the Code were instituted.

On receipt of the complaint, the Executive Magistrate issued notices to both the parties, viz. original Party No. 1 and original Party No. 2, on March 26, 1993, directing them to file their say about the report filed by the police. The parties filed their say and also placed documents on record.

On August 19, 1993, the Executive Magistrate passed the following order :--

"Both the parties have filed several other documents as evidence in support of their claim, but these documents need not be taken into consideration while deciding the case.

As per above stated grounds and reasoning I declare as per section 145(4) Cr.P.C. that prior to the two months from the date of the receipt of report party No. 2 have forcibly and illegally dispossessed party No. 1 from the property in this dispute. Hence the possession be given to party No. 1 by taking the same from the party No. 2 according to section 145(6) Cr.P.C. The notices be served to both the parties accordingly in writing."

Original party No. 2 challenged this order in revision in Criminal Revision Application No. 167 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Satara, which was entrusted to 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the record, found that the learned Executive Magistrate did not pass a preliminary order as contemplated under section 145(1) of the Code. He also found that the parties were not given proper opportunity to lead their oral evidence. In para 11 of the order, he stated thus :

"11. In view of the above circumstances, I think that it is not necessary to decide this revision petition on merits but I think it deserves to be remanded back to the learned Magistrate for fresh enquiry after passing necessary preliminary order and after giving proper opportunity to both parties to lead their oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the circumstances in this matter, I think there is no necessary to saddle the costs of this revision petition to either of the parties. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

Revision Petition is partly allowed.

Judgment and order under this revision petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate, Koregaon and he is directed to pass the necessary preliminary order after his due satisfaction and then allow both the parties to lead their evidence if they want to do so.

Taking into consideration, the present circumstances, the learned Magistrate is also directed to expedite this matter and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within two months from the receipt of the R P to that Court."

This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Narayan Keshav Virkar (original party No. 1 in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document