Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S JAGDAMBA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE versus SUPINDER PAL & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Jagdamba Building Material Store v. Supinder Pal & Ors - CRM-14202-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 265 (23 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.No.14202 M of 2004 (O&M)

Date of decision: 3.1.2006

M/S Jagdamba Building Material Store v. Supinder Pal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate.

Ms.Reeta Kohli, DAG,Punjab.

Mr. Labh Singh, Advocate.

ORDER:

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

This petition has been filed against order of the Court of Session, rejecting revision petition filed by the petitioner, against order dated 4.8.2003, passed by the District Magistrate.

The District Magistrate passed impugned order dated 4.8.2003, Annexure P.2, on the report of SHO, Police Station City Rajpura, dated 2.8.2003, to the effect that a cement mixture machine was found abandoned and as per opinion of the police, the same was owned by Avishek Pal, respondent No.2. The District Magistrate, accordingly, directed that the machine be handed over on superdari to the concerned owner under section 25 of the Police Act, 1861 (for short, the 'Act'). The petitioner made an application on the same date, claiming that he was owner of the machine and he ought to be heard. However, he withdrew the said application subsequently. According to the case of the petitioner in para 6 of the petition, the petition was withdrawn on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer. He, thereafter, filed a revision petition before the Court of Session, which has been dismissed as not maintainable, in view of judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kalloo v. State, AIR 1963 Madhya Pradesh 124.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken in the impugned order by the Court of Session was not correct as the judgment in Kalloo's case (supra) was only on interpretation of provisions of Section 25 of the Act and in the said judgment, the Court of Session had passed initial order instead of District Magistrate passing the initial order. It was held that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction to pass the said order under section 25 of the Act. In that case, question of exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not involved.

I have heard learned counsel for the State and the private respondents. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that since the petitioner withdrew his application for being heard, the petitioner had no right to be heard.

Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers revisional jurisdiction on High Court and Court of Session to call for and examine record of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court.

Explanation to the said provision provides that all magistrates whether executive or judicial, are deemed to be inferior to the Session Judge. It cannot, thus, be disputed that the Court of Session will have revisional jurisdiction over any order which may be passed by a magistrate. The view taken in the impugned order cannot, thus, be legally sustained. The judgment in Kalloo (supra), which has been relied upon in the impugned order, did not deal with the question of revisional jurisdiction of the Session Court. The observations in the said judgment relating to nature of jurisdiction under the Police Act being summary, cannot be read to mean that the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions is excluded.

In the present case, the petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate on the same date when the order was passed. Even though, jurisdiction of the District Magistrate may be summary, hearing of any party claiming title to the property, which is reported as unclaimed property or which is reported to be belonging to any other person, is not excluded. In the circumstances of the case, instead of remanding the case to the Court of Session, it will be in the interest of justice to direct that the District Magistrate will hear the petitioner about his claim, in accordance with law and till the passing of a fresh order, the earlier order will continue.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the concerned Additional District Magistrate on 20.3.2006.

January 3, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

dss/gs Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.