Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

SHRI KAMTA SINGH V/S BANSH RAKHAN SINGH, decided on Friday, August 30, 1996.
[ In the High Court of Patna, Cr. Rev 311 Of 1988. ] 30/08/1996
Judge(s) : DR.J.N. DUBEY
Advocate(s) : Ram Kishore Singh, Satyendra Narayan Singh.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1996 (2) PatLJR 600"  ==   "1997 (1) BLJ 298"  

    Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 Section 145 Section 397 Section 401 -     J.N. DUBEY J.(1.) - This revision is directed against the order dated 16-12-1986 of the Additional Sessions Judge XIII Patna.(2.) It appears that on 17-7-1968 the Officer-in-charge of PS. Bikram submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Danapur stating that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with respect to the possession of the property in dispute with a request for initiating proceedings under Section 144 Cr. P.C. Accordingly the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 144 Cr. P.C. which were subsequently converted into proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The case was subsequently transferred to the Judicial Magistrate 1st class Danapur who vide his order dated 30-11-1973 declared the possession of the opposite parties Dip Narain Singh and others O.P. No. 1. Bansh Rakhan Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1974 in this court which was allowed on 9-12-1977 and the case was remitted to the trial court for deciding afresh on merit. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate who heard the case in pursuance of the order dated 18-5-1987. Applicant filed Criminal revision before the Sessions judge which was dismissed in default on 16-12-1987. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.(3.) No second revision is provided under the Code of Criminal procedure and therefore this revision filed by the applicant against the order of the revisional Court is not legally maintainable.(4.) Learned Counsel for the applicant prayed that in case the second revision is not maintainable he may be permitted to convert it into proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C.(5.) Firstly it is now well settled that inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked for doing something which has been specifically barred by the legislature. Secondly it will not be proper to permit this revision to be converted into proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. after a lapse of over 8 years it is not a type of case where anyone could have committed a bona fide mistake of filing criminal-revision. Since the second revision is specifically barred it cannot be reasonably claimed that it was filed under some wrong legal advice. Moreover as it would appear from above the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C were initiated on the basis of the report dated 17-7-1963. About 28 years have passed and there has been no order in favour of the petitioner under Section 145 Cr. P.C. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. are of summary nature and are meant for meeting urgent situation. There is nothing on record to show that there has been any untoward incident between the parties during this period. Therefore no useful purpose would be served by permitting these proceedings to be revived after such a long time. I am therefore not inclined to permit the learned Counsel to convert this revision into the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Revision Dismissed.