SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, J. - (1.) A very short point namely whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to interfere with the accounts submitted by the Receiver appointed under Section 146 of the Cr. P.C. crops up for determination in the instant revision.
(2.) ON Nov. 28, 1975 at the instance of the 1st party/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Barasat drew up three proceedings and attached the lands in dispute and appointed the present petitioners as joint Receivers of the attached disputed properties. On Dec. 22, 1975 the petitioners submitted an account before the learned Magistrate showing the expenses for harvesting, thrashing and storing etc. and prayed for realisation of the same. On Jan. 6, 1976 on the basis of an application by the 1st party/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 145(5) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 the Sub -Divisional Magistrate was pleased to cancel the said proceedings and to find them in possession of the property in dispute; and the learned Magistrate also directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the aforesaid lands and harvested paddy etc. to the 1st party/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 on payment of the reasonable cost of harvesting and storing incurred by them. After taking delivery of possession the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 made an application before the learned Magistrate questioning the accounts submitted by them and prayed for assessment of the cost of harvesting etc. The learned Magistrate however, directed the Junior Land Reform Officer, Amdanga to hold an enquiry regarding the allegation. On receipt of notice from the learned Magistrate the petitioners appeared on March 3, 1976 and filed an objection. The petitioners also disputed the report dated Feb. 2, 1976 submitted by the Junior Land Reform Officer, Amdanga.
(3.) ON March 25, 1976 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to deliver the paddy and straw harvested and stored by them to the 1st party/ opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in presence of the Junior Land Reform Officer Amdanga and the learned Magistrate also directed the Junior Land Reform Officer to hold a fresh enquiry regarding the yield of the paddy and straw from the disputed land and the expenses incurred thereof. On Sept. 15, 1976 the Junior Land Reform Officer submitted his report but on Aug. 31, 1976 the petitioners further submitted an account relying on the previous account submitted by them. By an order dated 12th Sept. 1977 the learned Magistrate allowed the petition of the opposite parties and directed the Receivers to take payment of the produce in kind. Half of the demand was admissible. It is against this order the Receivers have come up in revision.;