ABDUL RAUF Vs. RAHOMUDDIN BHUIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Vakil in support of this rule and nobody appearing to oppose it, we think it must be made absolute.

(2.) THE order of the Magistrate, dated the 3 April 1907, postponing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. sine die and at the same time retaining the property covered by those proceedings under attachment, is an order which he certainly had no jurisdiction to pass. THE reasons given in the order itself for passing it are not, in our opinion, tenable. THEre is nothing whatever to show that the estate or area in which the land in dispute is situated is now under settlement by the revenue authorities under the provisions of Regulation VII of 1822, and even if it had been, the Deputy Magistrate does not appear to have followed the instructions contained in Section 34 of that Regulation. We hold that the reasons given for postponing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sine die are bad in law. We, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and conclude the proceedings according to law.