KARASANI PEDAKOTIREDDY Vs. KARASANI CHINNA VEERAREDDI
LAWS(APH)-1954-12-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 09,1954

KARASANI PEDAKOTIREDDY Appellant
VERSUS
KARASANI CHINNA VEERAREDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this revision case, the propriety of the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Guntur, directing the petitioner to bring back into Court the amount which was withdrawn by him under the orders of that Court in proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is challenged. After enquiry the Additional First Class Magistrate in M. C. No. 38 of 1953, declared that the petitioner was in possession of the properties in question. The present respondent who was aggrieved by that order brought the matter in revision to this Court.
(2.) Meanwhile he also filed a suit for a declaration of his title and possession to the property in dispute. When the Criminal Revision Case came before me for final disposal I dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter was pending in a Civil Court and it was therefore unnecessary to go into the merits of the relative contentions of either side. It was also remarked therein that it was a fit case for the appointment of a receiver to safeguard the interest of both sides, if the aggrieved party should file an application in that direction. Immediately after the disposal of that case the present respondent approached the Magistrate again for two reliefs : (1) to commit the advocate and the party for contempt of Court for having withdrawn the amount as per the directions of that Court ; and (2) for directing the petitioner to bring back the amount into Court. The First Class Magistrate while holding that no case has been made out for issue of a notice for committing the petitioner and his counsel for contempt of Court directed the money already drawn out to be brought back to be held in deposit into Court. Without giving any reasons, the learned Magistrate stated that in the circumstances it would be fair in the interests of both sides to pass such an order. He has not stated the circumstances, which in his opinion, would render it fair, to require the petitioner to bring the money into Court.
(3.) In support of this Revision Case, it is urged for the petitioner that a criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review its own judgments or orders and that at any rate the order is unsustainable as the Magistrate has not given any reasons in support of his conclusions.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.