M.C. JAIN, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 24-1-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the order of attachment passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, dated 27-7-1976, was set aside and the case was sent back to pass necessary orders for attachment of the land in dispute after hearing the parties. Both the parties were allowed to submit affidavits.

2. The relevant facts are that Gulam Rasul submitted an application under section 145, Cr.P.C., and on 27-7-1976, a preliminary order was drawn up and thereafter considering the case one of emergency, order of attachment was passed and Tehsildar, Pali, was appointed as Receiver. Aggrieved against the order of attachment, the opposite party, i. e., Neku and others, preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Pali, and the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the two affidavits, (1) of Gulam Rasul and (2) of Kedarnath, not being in proper form, set aside the order of attachment and remanded the matter with the aforesaid direction. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sessions Judge, Pali, Gulam Rasul has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard Shri P. L. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K. S. Rathore, on behalf of the non-petitioners.

4. Shri Choudhary contended that the learned Sessions Judge did not consider section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which makes a provision for curing all defects of omissions to take oath or make an affirmation or substitution of any one for any other of them or for irregularity in the administration of oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Mysore High Court in C. K. Chandrasekhriah vs. State of Mysore(l). He also urged that under the present provision of section 145 Cr.P.C. inquiry is to be conducted after recording evidence of both the parties and the matter is not required to be disposed of on the basis of the affidavits. Even if the affidavits are excluded from consideration, the Magistrate could satisfy himself on the basis of the application and could proceed to pass an order under section 146, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge in view of the amended provision should not have remanded the matter and should have considered the case on merits.

5. Shri Rathore, on the other hand, submitted that the affidavits were not in form No. 4 of the Schedule under section 6 of the Act. There was neither any oath or affirmation nor it was stated as to which paras were true to the personal knowledge of the deponent and which were true to his belief. Thus, the verification of the affidavits was not in accordance with the law, so the learned Sessions Judge was right in ignoring the affidavits and as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must have been influenced by the affidavits, so he thought it proper to remand the matter, giving fresh opportunity to both the parties to place their affidavits on record, and thereafter, proceed to pass the necessary orders regarding attachment after hearing the parties.

6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and I find substance in the contention of Shri Choudhary that by virtue of sec. 7, the alleged invalidity in the affidavits stands cured. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on a decision of this court in Roda vs. Nathu(2). It is true that this authority, which has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge holds that the affidavit without any invocation to God or reference to solemn affirmation, is not a valid and proper affidavit. It may be stated that in Rodas case, the provision contained in section 7 of the Act was not referred to and it appears that attention to this provision was not invited. Section 7 of the Act reads as under :—

"7. Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregu-larity.—No om

Click Here to Read the rest of this document