Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C.P. Sen, J.
Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant
Versus
Aeltemesh Rein
Decided On : Aug 17,1983
The Act covers land including agricultural land. The Act applies to agricultural land also. In view of entry No. 32 of the Union list, the Parliament is competent to legislate about agricultural land also where the land belongs to the Union, which cannot be subject to the legislation of the State under entry No. 18 of the State list. AIR 1972 SC 2205 & AIR 1964 Punj. 304 relied on. [Para 8
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 - S.245(2) - objection as to the lack of ingredients of an offence -can be considered after evidence is recorded - cannot be decided at preliminary stage.
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 - S.482 - charge sheet when may be quashed.
The matters regarding the objection that the complaint was about a civil matter or that the ingredients of an offence are not made out, cannot be considered at the preliminary stage, but after evidence is recorded. It is neither expedient nor possible to arrive at a conclusion at preliminary stage on the guilt or innocence of the accused on the material before the Court. While there is no doubt that the onus of proving the case is on the prosecution, it is equally clear that the prosecution should have sufficient opportunity to adduce all available evidence. AIR 1983 SC 545 relied on. [Para 6
(4) Constitution of India - Art.20(2) - bar when applies - the two prosecutions should be for the 'same offence' - prosecution under section 11 of the Public Premises Act, 1971, and under S.454 I.P.C. - are not for the same offence.
(5) General Clauses Act, 1897 - S.26 - bar - when applies.
Both in the case of Article 20(2) of the Constitution as well as under section 26 of the General Clauses Act, to operate as a bar, the second prosecution and the consequent punishment there under must be for the 'same offence' i.e. an offence whose ingredients are the same. Here the ingredients of offences under section 454 I.P.C. and under section 11 of the Public Premises (Eviction)Act are quite different. In the first case, the entry must be to commit offence or cause insult, intimidation or annoy the occupant and in the second case there is entry after having been evicted from a public premises under the Act. [Para 7
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 - S.4(2) - offences under laws other than Penal Code - procedure provided under the Code should be applied.
In the Public Premises Act there is no procedure prescribed for trial of offences under section 11 of the Act. Under section 18, the Central Government is empowered to make rules about the holding of inquiries under the Act, i.e. regarding procedure to be followed in eviction cases and not for trial of offences. As such section 4(2) of the Code will come into operation and the procedure in the Code has to be followed for trial of offences under section 11 of the Act. [Para 8
( 1. ) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Criminal Case No. 536 of 1982, Aeltemesh Rein and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. as both the cases arise out of the same set of facts. For brevitys sake, Steel Authority of India Ltd. is being described as SAIL. This is an application by SAIL under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. 1973, for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 90/1980 dated 30. 1. 1981 discharging Aeltemesh Rein and M. M. Rein under Section 245 (2) of the Code for the offence under Section 454 I. P. C. The other application is under Section 482 of the Code for. quashing the prosecution of Aeltemesh Rein and Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat under Section 11 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2. ) AELTEMESH Rein is the son of M. M. Rein and Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat and they are living together. M. M. Rein is an employee in the Bhilai Steel Plant run by SAIL. His wife Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat was given a licence for plot No. 2, measuring 1794 square feet in Sector No. 1, Bhilai, for running a cycle rickshaw garage and repair shop. It appears that Smt. Saiyada Mosarrat erected a structure over the plot and was running her shop there. However, her licence was cancelled for breach of license conditions and proceedings started for her eviction under the Act. By order dated 26. 4. 1974 Smt. Saiyada and another were directed to vacate the plot by the Estate Officer. Appeal was preferred before the District Judge which was dismissed. A writ petition to this Court and further special leave petition to the Supreme Court also failed. Estate Officer took possession on 30. 9. 1975 of the land and structure. In the meanwhile, Smt. Seiyada filed civil suit challenging the order of eviction by the Estate Officer. She also applied for temporary injunction which was refused and the order maintained in appeal by the Addl. District Judge and in revision by this Court. Then Special Leave Petition No. 4611/77 was filed in the Supreme Court and Smt. Saiyada was again placed in possession of the prentises on 24. 11. 1977. But the Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed and the Estate Officer retook possession on 22. 3. 1978 preparing an inventory of the articles found in the premises. Smt. Saiyada filed Special Leave Petition No. 3615/78 in the Supreme Court and on 25. 4. 1978 the Court directed that all the articles found in the premises be returned to her, which has been complied with. But Aeltemesh Rein filed criminal case against some of the employees of SAIL alleging that some of the articles have not been returned and misappropriated by them. The case has been registered under Sections 218 and Section 406 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and confirmed by this Court in Misc. Cr. Case No. 69/80. An appeal to the Supreme Court by the SAIL is pending.
( 3. ) ON 11. 5. 1978 SAIL filed complaint case No. 1223/78 under Section 11 of the Act alleging that on the night of 6. 5. 1978 Aeltemesh, his parents and servant Raju, have after being evicted, illegally retaken possession of the premises by breaking open the locks. The case has been registered only against Aeltemesh and his mother. The SAIL filed another complaint case No. 1409/78 on 23. 12. 1978 against the above four persons under Section 454 I. P. C. on the allegations that Aeltemesh, his father and servant Raju have illegally retaken possession on the night of 6. 5. 1978. The case was registered only against the last three but Raju was given up and discharged later on. In Cr. Case No. 1409/78 Aeltemesh filed an application under Section 245 (2) of the Code for dispharge from the case as the charge was groundless and the second complaint on the same facts is barred in view of Section 26 of the M. P. General Clauses Act. The learned Magistrate rejected the application saying that since the ingredients of the two offences are different, Section 26 is not attracte
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
