Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 309 (PAT)

Shobha Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-03-06

MANDHATA SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge III, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 276 of 1996 whereby the said revision filed by Opposite Parties 1st set has been allowed setting aside the order dated 25.4.1996 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate, Danapur in Case No. 1477(M) 86 in a proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the Magistrate had declared possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 3. Facts and its merit is not of much more importance as revision is decided on technical ground. In brief, a proceeding under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure initiated basing Police report vide Case No. 1477(M)/86 concerning Holding No. 251/146. Finding claim of the parties for possession over the land, the same was converted into one under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In the proceeding 1st party O.P.no.2 adduced his evidence, documentary as well as oral but none appeared for adducing evidence on behalf of second party revisionist. So final order was passed on 15.5.1992 is said ex-parte on behalf of revisionist. The same was challenged by preferring Cr. Revision no. 232 of 1992 which after hearing the parties allowed on 3.12.94 and order dated 15.5.1992 was set aside. Parties were allowed opportunity to adduce their evidence but a limitation was fixed by the Revisional Court that after receiving the record, the Court was to fix a date for seven days for adducing further evidence by 1st party opposite party, thereafter one month was allowed to revisionist 2nd party for adducing their evidence and thereafter three months’ time was given for passing the order by the court which could not be complied. Neither 1st party opposite party was given only seven days’ time nor he adduced his evidence within seven days. Similarly revisionist 2nd party also did not adduce his evidence within a period of one month nor the trial court passed its order within a period of three months. This much of the circumstance was raised in Revision no. 276/96 by 1st party opposite party. Taking into consideration the same the revision is allowed but under observation of earlier Revision no. 232/92 about acceptance of order dated 15.5.1992. 5. This much of the circumstance was raised in Revision no. 276/96 by 1st party opposite party. Taking into consideration the same the revision is allowed but under observation of earlier Revision no. 232/92 about acceptance of order dated 15.5.1992. 5. Now here in this Court it is submitted that no such time limit can be directed by any Court referring AIR 2012 Supreme Court 32. 6. Another decision reported in 1998(2) PLJR 229 (D.B) is also referred in which their Lordships have observed that in a proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure there can be no time limit for its decision. I also agree with the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist that no time limit can be fixed by any Court for adducing evidence or passing of the order/ judgment. Merit has not been touched in the revision. So there can be no observation on the point of merit. 7. In the discussed circumstance, this quashing application is allowed. The revisional order dated 15.6.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 276 of 1996 by Additional Sessions Judge III, Patna is set aside. The case is sent back to the Revisional Court to decide the same afresh on merit in accordance with law.