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

1956 Supreme(Ori) 80

NARASIMHAM
DASA MAHANTY – Appellant
Versus
GADADHAR SAMAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.DAS, G.C.JENA

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition against an order passed by a First Class Magistrate of kenorapara in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate after discussing the evidence of possession adduced by bath parties observed that he was inclined to believe that the disputed land was in the possession of the second party (petitioners ). But he thought that there was a discrepancy in describing the village, in which the disputed property was situated and moreover there was no evidence at all of a likelihood of breach of peace. He therefore dropped the proceeding and vacated the order of attachment on the 9th May 1956. On the 12th June 1956 he further observed that as the proceeding had been dropped without declaring the possession of either party ha could not, pass any order directing the Police to deliver the attached paddy crops to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate is clearly in error in thinking that once he passes an order dropping the proceeding he became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to pass any ancillary order regarding the custody of the property or of the attached crops. Whatever might have been the old law on the s


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