Back
Allahbad High Court
O.P.TRIVEDI
Jhabboo - Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Narayan - Respondent
Decided On : 10/16/1969
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - SECTION 517 - SECTION 547 - MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION TO PASS INCIDENTAL ORDERS - DISPOSAL OF ATTACHED PROPERTY - RECOVERY OF PROPERTY FROM SUPURDAR - INHERENT POWERS OF MAGISTRATE.
Fact of the Case:
In a dispute over agricultural land, the Magistrate attached the property and appointed a Supurdar to hold it. The applicant, Jhabboo, was appointed as the Supurdar. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were later dropped, and the Magistrate ordered the release of the attached property. However, the Supurdar failed to deliver the property to the legal heirs of the deceased owner, Laxmi Narayan and Rajendra Narayan. Laxmi Narayan filed an application before the Magistrate seeking the release of the property and the recovery of the crop harvested by the Supurdar. The Magistrate directed the Supurdar to deliver the property to the legal heirs and to deposit the price of the harvested crop. The Supurdar challenged this order, arguing that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Sessions Judge allowed Laxmi Narayan's appeal and remanded the case to the Magistrate with the direction to recover the entrusted property from the Supurdar. The Supurdar filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had inherent powers to pass incidental orders, including orders for the disposal of attached property, even after the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. had been dropped. However, the Magistrate could not pass an order directing the Supurdar to deliver possession of the attached property to any specific party or parties under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the enquiry had not concluded within the meaning of that section. The Court also held that the Sessions Judge's order directing the Magistrate to recover the entrusted property from the Supurdar was devoid of sanction of law as there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a Magistrate could take steps for recovery of any amount from the Supurdar.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass an order directing the Supurdar to deliver the attached property to the legal heirs of the deceased owner after the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. had been dropped. 2. Whether the Magistrate could pass an order under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Supurdar to deliver possession of the attached property to any specific party or parties. 3. Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass an order directing the Magistrate to recover the entrusted property from the Supurdar.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate has inherent powers to pass incidental orders, including orders for the disposal of attached property, even after the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. had been dropped. 2. The Magistrate cannot pass an order under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Supurdar to deliver possession of the attached property to any specific party or parties because the enquiry has not concluded within the meaning of that section. 3. The Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing the Magistrate to recover the entrusted property from the Supurdar as there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a Magistrate could take steps for recovery of any amount from the Supurdar.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed the order of the Sessions Judge, and directed the Magistrate to serve his order dated 14-1-1966 on the applicant-Supurdar and proceed in accordance with law.
This application in revision has been filed by Jhabboo against Laxmi Narayan and others. The facts leading to this case may be summarised as follows :-
Sewak Ram, father of Laxmi Narain, opposite party no. 1 and Rajendra Narayan, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C., on September 4, 1964, against his son Rajendra Narayan, opposite party no. 2; upon which a preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi, on 12-11-1964 directing attachment of the agricultural land, subject-matter of dispute. On 1-2-1965, the agricultural plots mentioned in para. 1 of the application and certain crops detailed therein were placed in the custody of Jhabboo, applicant as a supurdar by S. I. Jamna Narain of Police Station, Baghauli and a duly executed supurdaginama was obtained from Jhabboo. Meanwhile, Sewak Ram had died and this fact was reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 12-11-1964, who passed the following order :-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have seen the file. The applicant Sewak Ram has died. The opposite party is his son Rajendra Narayan. Now after the death of the applicant the question of succession of his legal heirs has to be decided from the competent Court. In this case the landed property including the crops in dispute has already been attached and given to the Supurdar. No further action under section 145, Cr. P. C.; appears necessary and as such I order that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. be dropped.
The attached property should be released. The S. O. Baghauli will in the meantime keep a watchful eye over both parties, as a case under Section 107, Cr. P. C. is already pending between the parties.
Sd/- Illegible.
3-3-65.
Magistrate 1st Class, HARDOI"
2. On 4-3-1965 a Robkar was issued from the Court of the said Magistrate to P. S. Baghauli containing the direction that the Supurdar may be asked to keep the property under attachment until the question as to who is the legal heir of Sewak Ram deceased is not decided and proper accounts regarding the attached property should be maintained by him. The report of the police on the back of this Robkar dated 5-3-1965 shows that intimation of this order by the Magistrate was given to the Supurdar as well as the two sons of Sewak Ram deceased. This order of the Magistrate appears to have been served on Rajendra Narayan, opposite party no. 2 on 9-3-1965.
3. On 8-3-1965, the said Magistrate directed the S. O. P. S. Baghauli that the attached property may be released in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached and a discharge receipt may be filed in Court.
4. A Robkar dated 8-3-1965 was accordingly sent from the Court concerned to P. S. Baghauli.
5. On 23-3-1965, a report was received from the police concerned by the Magistrate to the effect that the property had not been attached from the possession of any specific person and that the property was being claimed by both the sons of Sewak Ram deceased and further orders as regards release of the property were solicited from the Magistrate. On this the Magistrate passed the following order on 25-3-1965 ;
"It is not specifically mentioned by the police from whose possession the property in dispute was attached. Now as Sewak Ram recorded tenant has died, it will be proper to release the attached property in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased, S. O. Baghauli be informed accordingly.
Sd/- Illegible.
Magistrate 1st Class, HARDOI.
25-3-65."
6. On 31-5-1965, Laxmi Narayan, opposite party no. 1, applied before the Assistant Consolidation Officer Baghauli for division of the land of his deceased father between the two brothers and they were later declared by the Consolidation Officer to be entitled to half and half share in the disputed property of their deceased father.
7. Meanwhile on 31-3-1965 Laxmi Narayan, Opposite party no. 1 moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi, saying that in spite of the o
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
