- (1.)PARTY No. 1, Bheraram and three others, made an application under Section 133, Criminal P. C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deedwana, on May 16, 1967 stating therein that there was a public way 16 ft. wide, in village Ransisar. Party No. 2, Gangaram and Khemaram, committed encroachment thereon on May 12, 1967, reducing its with to about 5 ft. This obstruction caused a great deal of inconvenience to the general public Besides, there was every possibility of breach of the peace. The petitioners, there fore, prayed that the obstruction should be ordered to be removed in accordance with Section 133, read with Section 137, Criminal P. C. On receipt of the above application, Sub. Divisional Magistrate inspected the site that very day and issued an order that the obstruction should be removed by party No. 2 within 3 days, failing which the same would be got removed by the Court. On May 22, 1967, Gangaram filed a reply, denying the fact; that the width of the public way was about 16 ft. He alleged that the public way was only about 10 ft. , wide and that he had raised construction not on the public way but on his own land, obtained by him from the Panchayat through a 'patta. ' He further stated that his construction was about 1 ft. away from the public thoroughfare. Khemaram, in his reply, admitted to have committed encroachment on the public thoroughfare, and stated that he would do away with it if the same was removed by Gangaram. On May 28, 1967, evidence produced by party No. 1 was recorded. On May 27, 1987, witnesses produced by party No. 2 were examined. That day arguments were also heard and the case was subsequently disposed of on June 2, 1967, ordering Gangaram and Khemaram to remove the obstruction.
(2.)AGGRIEVED against the above order, a revision-application was filed by Gangaram in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Merta, but the same was rejected on February 8, 1968. Dissatisfied with the above order Gangaram has filed the present revision-petition, challenging the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deehwana, dated June 2, 1967, as also that of learned Sessions Judge, Merta, dated February 8, 1968.
(3.)CONTENTION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Gangaram denied the fact that there was any public way on the land which was in his possession in accordance with the 'patta,' obtained from the Panchayat. He further urged that when such a denial was made in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it was incumbent upon it to start proceedings according to Section 139-A, and not to jump to Section 137, Cr. P. C. , and dispose of the case after recording evidence of both the parties. learned Counsel further urged that provisions of Section 139-A are mandatory and their non-compliance by the Court vitiates the entire proceedings.
;