Back
1983 Supreme(Pat) 13
High Court of Patna
K.B. Sinha, J.
Chet Lal Mahton & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Rewa Lal Mahton & Others
Criminal Revision No. 650 of 1981 With Criminal Revision No.777 of 1981
Decided on : 11.1.1983
For the petitioners: M/s N.K. Agrawal, J.P. Bhagat, A.K. Agrawal, S.K. Sacaff
For the opposite party: M/s S.R. Ghosal, S.B. Pathak, N.K. Aikat.
An order for attachment of disputed land under Section 146(1) of the CrPC must contain facts and circumstances justifying an emergency situation, and a mere statement of an abnormal situation is insufficient.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 146(1) - ATTACHMENT OF DISPUTED LAND - EMERGENCY - INTERPRETATION - ORDER FOR ATTACHMENT MUST CONTAIN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING EMERGENCY - MERE STATEMENT OF ABNORMAL SITUATION INSUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
Two revision petitions challenging orders passed by a Sub-divisional Officer attaching disputed land under Section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace during cultivation season.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the orders were void as the Magistrate failed to provide specific findings and reasons justifying the emergency situation, and merely stating that an abnormal situation had arisen was insufficient.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's orders for attachment of disputed land under Section 146(1) of the CrPC were valid without specific findings and reasons justifying an emergency situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 146(1) of the CrPC and held that an order for attachment of disputed land must contain facts and circumstances on the basis of which a reasonable inference of emergency can be drawn. The mere statement of an abnormal situation, without supporting materials, is insufficient to establish an emergency.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC within six months.
K.B. Sinha, J.
A common question of law is involved in both these revision petitions and so with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties they are disposed of by this common JUDGMENT :. The facts of the two cases are little different from each other and hence they are put separately.
Criminal Revision No. 777 of 1981
The two petitioners in this case have challenged the ORDER :passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara on the 25th June, 1981, by which the land in dispute in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was attached under the provision of Section 146(1) of the Code. It appears that some time after initiation of the proceeding under section 145 of the Code, a petition was tiled by the opposite party (first party) that there was apprehension of breach of the peace for cultivation of the disputed land as the cultivation season had set in. After hearing the counsel for the opposite party (first party), the impugned ORDER :was passed.
Sri N.K. Agrawal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the ORDER :mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not given specific finding that it was a case of emergency and in absence of such finding the ORDER :is void. It is also contended that even reasons have not been assigned by the learned Magistrate in support of his ORDER :for attachment of the disputed land.
2. The points raised on behalf of the petitioners have been seriously disputed by Mr. S.R. Ghosal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. His contention is that it is not necessary to mention the word 'emergency' by the Magistrate when he decides to attach the land under Section 146 (1) of the Code. According to his submission an ORDER :for such attachment can very well be passed if material are available on the record which can lead to the inference that, in fact, it is a case of emergency.
Criminal Revision No. 650 of 1981
3. In this case a proceeding under lection 145 of the Code was started by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara on 24.6.1981 at the Magistrate found that there was apprehension of breach of the peace regarding dispute over some land. A petition was filed by the opposite party' (first party) in the court below on 25.6.1981 to attach the land under Section 146(1) of the Code on the ground that the season for cultivation had commenced and he was apprehending trouble in cultivation of the land. After hearing the opposite party (first party), the Magistrate passed the impugned ORDER :.
4. As in the first case, so in this case also the ORDER :has been challenged by Sri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the same ground that neither there was material to hold that it was a case of emergency nor the Magistrate recorded any such finding.
5. Sri Y.C. Verma, learned council appearing on behalf of the opposite party (first party) has strenuously argued in support of the impugned ORDER :. His contention is that the Magistrate has given some reasons and nothing more is required for making this ORDER :maintainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to give detailed facts for recording finding that it is a case of ‘emergency.’ According to him sufficiency or otherwise of the materials cannot be a subject matter of consideration by a higher court at revisional stage. It is enough that the Magistrate mentions in his ORDER :that a situation has arisen that necessitated attachment of the land under Section 146(1) of the Code.
6. It may be noted that almost in the lame terms the learned Magistrate hall passed the ORDER :under challenge in both the cases. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party (first party) in both the cases have led great stress that expression abnormal situation (ASAMANYA STHITI) indicates that the Magistrate had considered the Case to be one of emergency.
7. From the r
