IN RE: LACHMAN Vs. STATE
LAWS(PVC)-1900-3-2
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on March 24,1900

IN RE: LACHMAN Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Aikman, J - (1.) AN order was issued to the applicants by a duly empowered Magistrate, directing them under the provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remove an unlawful obstruction from a road which wag said to be a public road, or to appear within a time fixed and move to have the order set aside. The applicants put in a petition, in which they denied that there ever was a road as asserted by the other side. Had they adhered to this position, and had the Magistrate, without considering whether the applicants plea was or was not a bond fide claim of right, passed the order complained against, it would have been a case for interference in revision. But instead of adopting this course the applicants asked the Magistrate to appoint a jury, that being the third alternative given by Section 135 of the Code. The Magistrate nominated the two men named by the applicants, namely, Bachu Lal and Ganesh Prasad Narain. He also appointed two men whose names were supplied by the opposite side, and he appointed as umpire one Munshi Nazir Ali, Manager of the Dubari Estate. Four persons, including the umpire, agreed in finding that the order complained of was a reasonable and proper order. The fifth person did not for some reason join the jury, and did not concur in the verdict. Amongst the four persons who agreed in finding that the Magistrate's order was a reasonable and proper one were Bachu Lal and Ganesh Prasad Narain, the two persons nominated by the applicants. I am asked to interfere in revision on the ground that there was a disputed question of title, and that therefore there was no jurisdiction to pass the order. On the facts set forth above I decline to do this and reject the application.;


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