9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the finding of Civil Court u/s 146 (1B) can be challenged by way of an appeal, review, or revision. 2. Whether an order passed by the Magistrate on the receipt of the finding of the Civil Court, in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court, can be challenged before the High Court u/s 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Whether an order passed by the Magistrate u/s 146 (1B) can be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Summary: Issue 1: The Supreme Court examined whether the finding of the Civil Court u/s 146 (1B) regarding possession can be challenged by way of appeal, review, or revision. The Court held that the finding of the Civil Court is final and cannot be challenged by way of appeal, review, or revision. This is supported by the express provision in Section 146 (1D) which states, "No appeal shall lie from any finding of the Civil Court given on a reference under this Section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed." The Court referenced the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ramchandra Aggarwal and Anr., affirming that the wording of Section 146 (1D) puts the matter beyond any controversy. Issue 2: The Court addressed whether an order passed by the Magistrate on receipt of a finding from the Civil Court can be challenged by way of revision before the High Court. The Court concluded that if the Magistrate's order is in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court, it cannot be challenged. The Court emphasized that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is an express provision in sub-Section (1D) against the challenge of the finding of the Civil Court. The answer to the second question is that an order passed by the Magistrate u/s 146 (1B) in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court cannot be challenged under Sections 435 and 439. Issue 3: The Court considered whether an order u/s 146 (1B) can be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged that the powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 227 cannot be curtailed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the scope of interference by the High Court under Art. 227 is restricted. The Court reiterated that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The Court found that the High Court was in error in invoking Sections 435 and 439 for interfering with the finding of the Civil Court regarding possession in a reference under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Magistrate. The Court noted that Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, and the issues dealt with in this case can no longer arise under the new provisions.
|
