Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 536 (RAJ)

Mag Das v. State of Rajasthan

1986-08-25

M.C.JAIN

body1986
M.C. JAIN, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar dated 19.10.85 passed in Criminal Case No. 288 of 1985 under Ss. 447, 427 and 379, I.P.C. whereby, the learned Magistrate directed that the seized Khasra Nos. 162, 168 and 169 be delivered to the complainant Shivratan. 2. The petitioners were prosecuted on the report of Shiv Ratan lodged on 17.6.85 at the police station, Sardar Shahar for the offences under Ss. 447, 427 and 379, IPC. During investigation, these three Khasras Nos. 162, 168 and 169 were taken possession of by the police and a memo was prepared to that effect. After presentation of the charge-sheet, on 4.10.85 applications were presented by both the parties for delivery of possession of the three khasras during the pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order. From the side of the complainant, several documents were placed on record, which were the part of the papers submitted by the police along with the charge-sheet. It appears that there were revenue litigation in respect of the land in question with the predecessor of the members of the accused party. The complainant is the successor of Arjunram and Magdas and Arjunlal are the sons of Radhakishan The suit was filed by Shri Arjunram, which was ultimately decreed and the decree was maintained by the Board of Revenue. Under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer in execution, warrant for delivery of possessions dated 8.5.85 was issued and that warrant was executed on 23.5.85. According to the prosecution, trespass was again committed on 12.6.86 and (he report was lodged by Shivratan on 17 6.85 and submitted the charge-sheet on 4.10.85. While considering the applications of both the parties, the learned Magistrate found it just and proper to deliver the custody of the land in question to the complainant Shivratan, pending conclusion of the trial. It also appears that the land was ordered to be put into custody of the complainant on furnishing Supurdginama and Jamanatnama. The facts and circumstances of the present case are so obvious that they clearly go to establish that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not only legal but just and proper. The possession was obtained by the complainant in execution of the decree on 23.5.85 and according to the complainant, trespass was committed thereafter. The facts and circumstances of the present case are so obvious that they clearly go to establish that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not only legal but just and proper. The possession was obtained by the complainant in execution of the decree on 23.5.85 and according to the complainant, trespass was committed thereafter. The documents submitted along with the charge sheet showing the delivery of the possession to the complainant, are of great significance and viewed in the light of those documents, it was proper for the learned Magistrate to have ordered for proper custody of land in question till the conclusion of the trial by delivery of the custody of the land to the complainant. 3. Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a fresh revenue suit was instituted and interim order has been passed in that suit. I need not go into this question as the necessary material was not placed either before the learned Magistrate or before the Court of Sessions and what this Court is required to consider is as to whether the learned Magistrate was right and justified in passing the impugned order on the basis of the material on record. I find full justification in passing of the impugned order in the back-ground of the case and particularly, the documents produced along with the charge-sheet showing delivery of the possession to the complainant in execution of the decree. It may be stated that under Sec. 451, Cr.P.C., the interim order was passed for the proper custody of the land in question till the conclusion of the trial. It is for the Court to manage the property during this period, that is why, the properties are released on execution of Supurdginama and Jamanatnama. In the impugned order dated 19.1085 no such conditions find mention regarding the submission of the Supuradginama and Surety bonds. The learned counsel for the complainant produced before me a certified copy of the communication dated 19.10 85. to the Station House Officer, which shows that the learned Magistrate had passed the order for submission of Supurdginama and surety bond by the complainant and communication records that these documents have been verified. It further records that in view of the verification, the land be delivered to Shiv Ratan against receipt. Mr. to the Station House Officer, which shows that the learned Magistrate had passed the order for submission of Supurdginama and surety bond by the complainant and communication records that these documents have been verified. It further records that in view of the verification, the land be delivered to Shiv Ratan against receipt. Mr. Singhvi, submitted that the learned Magistrate has not passed any order regarding the rendition of accounts etc. When the property is in the Custody of the court and only an arrangement has been made for proper custody of the land in question till the conclusion of the trial and when the custody shall be treated on behalf of the court, the person to whom the property is given is under an obligation to render the account. If he cultivates the land, it will be on behalf of the court. In this connection, suffice is to say that the petitioners if so advised may approach the Magistrate. So far as the impugned order is concerned, in my opinion, the same calls for no interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, this petition fails, so, it is hereby dismissed.