DAVE, J.—This is a reference arising out of an application in revision by one Tikuda against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, dated the 15th of October, 1959.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that on the 24th of June, 1959, the petitioner presented an application to the Superintendent of Police, Amber, requesting him to take proceedings against Ghasi Balai and 6 others under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Superintendent of Police forwarded that application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Govindgarh. After investigation, the Station House Officer, Govindgarh, presented a report in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amber, requesting him to take proceedings against Ghasi and 6 others under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was stated in the said report that a field (Khasra No. 24), appertaining to what was known as Kothi Nadiawali, was in the possession and cultivation of the petitioner Tikuda since Smt. year 2009, that on the 23rd of June, 1959, the petitioner had to put in a few cart-loads of manure in the said field, that the non-petitioners Ghasi and his six companions went to the said field, armed with lathies and restrained the petitioner from manuring and cultivating the field by show of force. It was, therefore, prayed that the seven non-petitioners should be bound down to keep peace under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further prayed that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of breach of the peace and, therefore, pending the completion of the inquiry, the non-petitioners should be directed to execute bonds for keeping the peace under sec. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of this report on the 29th of June, 1959 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under sec. 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed notice to be issued to the non-petitioners to appear on the 7th of July, 1959, and show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds in the amount of Rs. 500/- each with one surety for the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. On 7th July, 1959, the petitioner presented another application to the Magistrate requesting him again to pass an order under sec. 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was, however, adjourned five times for one or the other reason which need not be narrated here. Eventually, when the case came up before the Magistrate on the 27th of July, 1959, the prosecuting Sub-Inspector and counsel for the petitioner both pressed their request for taking immediate measures under sec. 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the non-petitioners contested that application and suggested that the court should proceed under sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the property should be attached under sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case should be referred to the revenue court, where a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property filed by the petitioner was already pending. This suggestion found favour with the Magistrate and he converted the previous proceedings under sec. 107 to those under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then, relying on Rugga Vs. Moona(r) he passed an order for attaching the property in dispute, appointed the Tehsildar as a receiver and referred the case under sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the revenue court where a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was pending. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner fi!ed a revision application in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. It was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, and dismissed by him on 115th Oct., 1959. The petitioner then filed the present revision application in this Court. It came for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 25th Jan., 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold contentions on that date. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document