Find a Lawyer

Criminal Reference No. 86 of 1968, decided on 30th October 1968.

Ss. 145 & 517/520‑‑Pro ceedings under S. 145‑Within category of inquiry as contemplated by S. 517‑Dropping of proceedings under S. 145‑Covered by term "conclusion of enquiry" Police, while initiating proceedings under S. 145 recovering an iron gate removed by opposite‑party from disputed premises‑Magistrate, while dropping proceedings under S. 145, directing delivery of such gate to first party (complainant) Order of Magistrate upheld‑Magistrate not required to decide title of such articles‑First party, in circumstances, further, directed by High Court under S. 520 to restore the iron gate to its original position in the disputed premises.

Kh. Mahbubuddin Ahmed for the 1st Party.

Mazhar Hossain for the 2nd Party.

This is a reference recommending that the order of a learned Magistrate directing the return of an iron gate to the first party in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code be set aside. The learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and while passing the said order dropping the proceedings he made the order directing the return of the iron gate to the first party.

Mr. Mazhar Hassanain appearing in support of the reference first argued that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order inasmuch as proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code was confined to disputes with regard to immovable property only. 1t is true that section 145, Criminal Procedure Code should normally be confined to proceedings regarding immovable properties namely land and water which has been defined in the said section itself. But the proceedings in the present case arose out of a dispute over a ghatla. The iron gate in question was a part of the ghatla. It was seized at the instance of the first party from the possession of the second party who, it was alleged; had removed it illegally ‑from the site of the ghatla where it has fallen down, to the godown of the tenant of the second party. The police seized the iron gate when information was lodged regarding it and the dispute to the police station and kept it in the jimma of one Md. Hossain. The police also submitted a report to the learned Magistrate that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate issued the processes under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and also directed that the iron gate be kept in the Jimma of the Jimmadar. It is not disputed by Mazhar Hassanain that the iron formed a part of the ghatla. Moreover section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives the learned Magistrate power to dispose of any article seized in the course of a criminal proceedings namely in an inquiry or a trial. It cannot be disputed A: that a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code falls within the category of an inquiry as contemplated by section 517, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Mazhar Hassanain then argued that as the learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings it cannot be said that the inquiry had concluded as required by section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code: In my opinion a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code can be concluded in three ways. The learned Magistrate can find possession with the first party or find possession with the second party or he can drop the proceedings if he is satisfied that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Dropping of the proceeding's B on being satisfied that there is no apprehension of the breach of the peace is certainly the conclusion of an inquiry, proceedings regarding which was started under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Mazhar Hassanain then argued that the direction of the learned Magistrate to return the iron gate to, the first party was made without taking any evidence and as such was illegal. But section 517 does not require any inquiry or taking' any evidence regarding the goods and the Magistrate is given the discretion to return the goods to any person. The power to deal with the goods is given to the Magistrate only regarding goods which were involved in a criminal proceedings. The learned Magistrates are not called upon to decide the title regarding the goods involved in a criminal proceeding. For that the Civil (2ourt is open. In that view of the matter I do not see any reason why the order of the learned Magistrate should be changed. The reference is therefore, rejected and the order of the learned Magistrate is maintained. But under the provision of the section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code I direct the first party to n restore the iron gate to its original position in the ghatla within three weeks of taking delivery from the Jimmadar or within three weeks from the date of this order reaching the Court below whichever is later.

Reference rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.