GURUNATH PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
STATE OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramaswami, J. -
(1.) This criminal revision petition is preferred against the order made by the Party) vs. State of Madras and Anr. (08.08.1952 -MADHC) Page 2 of 3 Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam in M.C. No. 2 of 1951 directing that the properties involved in Section 145, Crl. P. C. be attached under Section 146, Crl. P. C.
(2.) The short facts are: The question which fell to be considered by the Additional First Class Magistrate was as to who was in possession of Section No. 457/3 after 20-4-1950 on 9-3-1951 that is whether the field had come to be in the possession of Veerappa Chettiar or had continued to remain I the possession of Kandaswami Pillai.
(3.) The learned Additional First Class Magistrate has discussed in paragraph 14 of his judgment the reasons for his inability to be satisfied as to who was in possession of the property. The learned Magistrate after setting out the evidence adduced before him on this point has stated:
"The oral evidence let in by both sides to prove possession after 20-41950 is thus unreliable and unworthy of being acted upon. in fact the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 9 stated in reply to a question from the court that he had no Idea when he asked for orders under Section 144, Crl. P. C. as to who had raised the crop on the land and that both parties claimed to have raised that crop." In other words, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate found that it was a case where two sides were scrambling for possession and that he was unable on the evidence on record to satisfy himself whether the one party or the other was in effective possession on the crucial date.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.