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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 416

BEASLEY
Natesa Naicken – Appellant
Versus
Raghavachari – Respondent


ORDER

Beasley, J.

1. The facts of these cases appeal to be that an application under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was pending and during the pendency of that application, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized certain harvested crops apprehending a breach of the peace. The crops were first entrusted to the Village Munsiff and subsequently the crops were sold and the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 340 were deposited and the proceedings under Section 145 were dropped with the consent of both parties. As there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace taking place, the question of possession was not decided. The Magistrate then appears to have decided the question, as to which of the parties was to receive the money, which had been deposited and he decided that the money was to be handed over to the counter-petitioners, in Miscellaneous Case No. 62 of 1922. The effect of this was that he really was deciding a question, which was the subject of dispute, between the parties, to be decided later on. In my view, he had no right whatever to make the order he did. But the proper order would have been for the money, which had been deposited, to remain on deposit, pending the decision, as

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