The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging the quashing of a Sub Divisional Magistrate's order. The Court held the lower appellate order was correct as the impugned order violated Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
The revision petition is dismissed, respecting the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3202 of 2004
Revisionist :- Roop Ram Opposite Party :- Ram Sanehi And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Nobody is present for the revisionist to press the present revision even in the revised call, hence the matter is heard with the assistance of learned AGA and perused the record.
The case in hand in brief is that the order dated 15.4.2004 was passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Puwayan, District Shahjanhapur and the crops of the plot in question had been given in custody to an independent person and the parties were directed to produce the order passed under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. This order was challenged by way of Criminal Revision No.42 of 2004 (Ram Sanehi Vs. Room Ram and State of U.P.) which was allowed and the order of the SDM was quashed vide order dated 14.07.2004.
On the basis of the above fact, only an order of attachment could be passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C., if SDM finds that there was any emergency and if he was unable to ascertain as to who was originally in possession of the plot in question.
Certainly, no order of attachment has been passed by SDM, hence the order passed by the SDM was in contravention of Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is good in view of the fact and law.
In view of the above, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Pravesh Mishra
Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Roop Ram
Ram Sanehi
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
