The Executive Magistrate has the right to hold a local enquiry for his satisfaction as per the provisions of section 310 CrPC. A second revision application is not maintainable under sections 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CrPC. The inherent powers under section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked in the absence of glaring abuse of the process of the Court.

This criminal revision is so preferred by the sole petitioner Shri Motilal Upadhyaya against the judgment and order dated 30.9.94 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in CM Case No.87 (N) of 1994 affirming the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 20.6.94 passed in MR Case No.32 of 1994 a proceeding under section 145 CrPC declaring the possession of Dimbeswar Bora and others figuring here opposite party over the land in proceeding.

2. Mr. KK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party are heard at length.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel submits that though following order so passed in proceeding under section 145 CrPC against the present petitioner by the Executive Magistrate on 20.6.94, criminal revision was so preferred seeking redressal before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed arbitrarily on 30.9.94 on critic grounds and hence this revision petition under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and for securing the ends of justice by also exercising the general power of superintendence. The points so taken as good grounds for setting aside the order dated 30.9.94 is that learned Executive Magistrate would not have personally made local enquiry by visiting the plot rather the same would have been made if felt necessary as per the provisions of section 148 CrPC and further more without preparing the memorandum of the inspection note, it is further pointed out that me learned Executive Magistrate has erred to a great extent causing prejudice to the petitioner and it can well be said that his deciding factum of possession over the land in proceeding in favour of the opposite party basing the same also on local enquiry so made which was not so made as per the provisions of law, hence has caused abuse of-the process of the Court which requires interference by exercising inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. Mr. Mahanta further submits that knowing it fully well that normally the same party is not expected to file second criminal revision which is a bar under section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CrPC but where there is glaring abuse of the process of the Court, the persons aggrieved has all the rights as to invokes, the power under section 482 of the CrPC and hence this petition. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner referred some of the reported cases in (1983) 1 GLR 139, 1985 Criminal Law Journal 771 (Sukhailal and others vs. Saligram Dubey, Tahasildar of Tisco), AIR 1985 SC 2 1664 (Keisam Kumar Singh & another vs. State of Manipur), AIR 1980 SC 1 258 (Raj Kapoor & others vs. State (Delhi Administration) & others).

4. Heard Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party. First of all he raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this criminal revision petition, which is preferred by the same party for the second time which is a bar under the explicit provisions of section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CrPC. In support of this contention Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a reported case, AIR 1993 SC 1361 (Dharampal & others, vs. Smti Ramshri & others). By particularly referring to its concluding portion of para 4, it is pointed out that Apex Court has clearly held inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are explicit barred by the Code particularly under section 397 (3) of the CrPC. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has further referred to another reported case i.e. (1995) 5 SCC 751 (Deepti Alias Arati Rai vs. Akhil Rai & others). In this background it is pointed out that second revision application after the dismissal of the first one by the learned Sessions Judge is not maintainable and that inherent power under section 482 CrPC can not be utilised. Another reported case banked upon on beha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document