Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 71
PATNA HIGH COURT
A.B.N.Sinha, J.
Imaman Mian
Versus
Saligram Singh
Criminal Revision No. 578 of 1964 ;
Decided On : JULY 7, 1965
Failure to consider relevant documentary evidence of possession can lead to an erroneous confirmation of possession under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Possession - Criminal Procedure Code - The court set aside the order confirming possession and remitted the case back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of relevant materials.
Fact of the Case:
The Magistrate confirmed possession of the first party under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, without considering the documentary evidence of possession adduced by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found substance in the contention that the Magistrate failed to address the documentary evidence of possession, leading to the setting aside of the order and remittance of the case for fresh consideration.
Issues: Failure of the Magistrate to consider documentary evidence of possession, leading to an erroneous confirmation of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure of the Magistrate to address and consider the relevant documentary evidence of possession led to the setting aside of the order and remittance of the case for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order confirming possession and remitted the case back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of relevant materials.
1. This application is directed against the order dated the 7th February 1963, passed by a Magistrate, first class, Chatra, confirming the possession of the first party to a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and, forbidding any disturbance to such possession till eviction in due course of law. The second parties are the petitioners. They urged in support of the petition that the learned Magistrate has not considered the documentary evidence of possession adduced on behalf of the petitioners or for the matter of that on behalf of the opposite party as well. No one appears on the other side.
2. I have read the order of the learned Magistrate. I find there is substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has no doubt enumerated the documents filed on behalf of the parties. Unfortunately he has failed to address himself to a consideration thereof. The documents are mainly documents bearing on the question of possession. If he had come to some conclusion one way or the other with reference to the documents filed on behalf of the parties, I have no doubt his conclusion would have had a necessary bearing on the value of the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.
3. In the result, the order dated the 7th February 1983, passed by Sri A.A. Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is set aside and the case is remitted back to him to bear the parties afresh and come to a decision on a consideration of the relevant materials on the record in accordance with law.
4. The application thus succeeds and the rule is made absolute.
