Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Monilal Bakshi Vs. Dipak Ranjan Bakshi

Monilal Bakshi vs Dipak Ranjan Bakshi

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Guwahati Decided Mar 23, 2001
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/138708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Guwahati High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 448 of 1998
Subject
;Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - This court will like to agree with the above provision.

Key legal issue
;Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 144, 144(4) and 145

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Monilal Bakshi

Advocate M. Singh and G. Singh, Advs.

Respondent

Dipak Ranjan Bakshi

Advocate G.P. Bhowmick and R. Hazarika, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 144, 144(4) and 145

Excerpt

- - this court will like to agree with the above provision......when the proceeding under section 144 is alive, that is within a period of two months form the date of initiation of the proceeding. once the proceeding under section 144 cr pc lapses due to efflux of time, the magistrate has no power to pass any order as the proceeding itself has become dead. 4. it is, therefore, held that in appropriate cases the magistrate can pass an order of conversion from proceeding under section 144 cr pc to proceeding under section 145 cr pc within the period when the proceeding is alive. 5. the learned counsel at this stage submits that the application for conversion was made during the pendency of the proceeding under section 144 cr pc itself. the making/filing of the application for conversion is not sufficient, the order of conversion have to be passed during the stipulated period. 6. now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no dispute at the bar that the proceeding under section 144 cr pc was drawn up on 21.10.1992. thus, in view of the provisions contained under section 144(4) the order lost its force on 20.12.1997. the order of conversion was passed on 5.1.1998 when the said proceeding under section 144 cr pc was not alive. the order of conversion was passed beyond the stipulated period. the revisional court rightly quashed the proceeding under section 145 cr pc. 7. in view of the above the revision petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard Mr. M. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. GP Bhowmick learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. In this revision the short point that has arisen for consideration is that whether a proceeding drawn under Section 144 Cr PC can be converted to a proceeding under Section 145 Cr PC. Although there is no specific provision under the Criminal Procedure Code, various High Courts have held that proceeding drawn under Section 144 Cr PC may be converted to a proceeding under 145 Cr PC in appropriate cases. This court will like to agree with the above provision.

3. The next question that comes for determination is when a court can pass order of conversion. In view of the provisions under Section 144(4) Cr PC no order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC shall remain in force for more than two months from the date of making the order thereof. There is a proviso which provides for extension of the period for two months but admittedly the proviso is not applicable in the present case as no such extension was lawfully made. Thus, a Magistrate has jurisdiction/power to pass an order of conversion when the proceeding under Section 144 is alive, that is within a period of two months form the date of initiation of the proceeding. Once the proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC lapses due to efflux of time, the Magistrate has no power to pass any order as the proceeding itself has become dead.

4. It is, therefore, held that in appropriate cases the Magistrate can pass an order of conversion from proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC to proceeding under Section 145 Cr PC within the period when the proceeding is alive.

5. The learned counsel at this stage submits that the application for conversion was made during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC itself. The making/filing of the application for conversion is not sufficient, the order of conversion have to be passed during the stipulated period.

6. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no dispute at the Bar that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was drawn up on 21.10.1992. Thus, in view of the provisions contained under Section 144(4) the order lost its force on 20.12.1997. The order of conversion was passed on 5.1.1998 when the said proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was not alive. The order of conversion was passed beyond the stipulated period. The revisional court rightly quashed the proceeding under Section 145 Cr PC.

7. In view of the above the revision petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial