SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. - (1.) This revisional application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by two petitioners Susanta Sarkar and Shibaji Sarkar against Sudipta Sarkar and the State of West Bengal as opposite party nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2014.
(2.) Petitioners of the revisional application filed an application under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) before the Executive Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur against the opposite party Sudipta Sarkar or drawing up a proceeding under Section 147, Cr.P.C. and to restrain the opposite party Sudipta Sarkar from causing disturbance against the right of petitioners to use a drain. Petitioners alleged that the opposite party obstructed the drain in front of his house throwing rubbish on the drain and on that issue there is every possibility of serious breach of peace in the locality.
(3.) The application of the petitioners was registered as Petition Case No. 380 of 2012 corresponding to M.R. Case No. 27 of 2013 in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur. Learned Executive Magistrate called for reports from I/C Kotwali Police Station and B.L. and L.R.O. Medinipur Sadar and from Medinipur Municipality. Petitioners have annexed a copy of report dated 12.09.2012 of police officer of Kotwali Police Station with their revisional application. On 19.03.2013 learned Executive Magistrate passed an order drawing up proceeding under Section 147 (1), Cr.P.C. Subsequently, order dated 18.02.2014 was passed by learned Executive Magistrate for recording evidence. Said order was challenged by aforesaid Sudipta Sarkar (opposite party no. 1 herein) filing Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2014. Said revisional application was heard and the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2014 was delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur. Said judgment has been challenged in this revisional application.;