SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Ker) 161

GEORGE VADAKKEL, T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON
BAPPUTTY – Appellant
Versus
KAYYU – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. preliminary order under S.145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was issued by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perintalmanna on 21-7-1976 requiring the parties thereto to attend his court on 30-7-1976 as contemplated by the provisions of the said code. Viewing the matter as one of emergency the learned Magistrate attached the property under dispute under S.146(1) of the same code and the Village Officer, Valam-bur was put in charge of the property attached. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence. At that stage a question of jurisdiction was raised before the learned Magistrate. Answering the same he held that he has no jurisdiction to determine the question of possession. He thereafter dropped further proceedings under S.145 of the Code. The learned Magistrate in taking the aforesaid view followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Chandi Prasad v. Om Prakash (1976 Crl. Q. 209) and that of the Patna High Court in Md. Muslehuddin v. Md. Salahuddin (1976 Crl. Q. 1150). This is the order under revision.

2. The learned single judge, who heard the case in the first instance, doubted the correctness of the decision of the lower court and raised














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top