Nanumal vs Emperor - 1939 Supreme(Lah) 88

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1939 Supreme(Lah) 88

ABDUL RASHID
Nanumal – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Abdul Rashid, J. - On the day when the respondents appeared the learned Magistrate ought to have questioned them whether they denied the existence of any public right in respect of the place in dispute. If they denied the existence of a public right, the Magistrate, before proceeding under Section 137 or Section 138, Criminal P.C., ought to have inquired into this matter. If in such an inquiry the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was some reliable evidence in respect of such denial he should have stayed the proceedings until the matter had been decided by a competent Court. If, on the other hand, he came to the conclusion that the denial was not supported by any reliable evidence he could proceed under Section 137 or Section 138, Criminal P.C. It appears that the Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 139-A, Criminal P.C. I therefore accept the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate for the removal, of the encroachment on 18th May 1938. The Magistrate shall re-summon the respondents, and conduct the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 139-A, Criminal P.C. If t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document