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.

State Vs. Sivasankaran Thampi

State vs Sivasankaran Thampi

Disposition Order set aside Court Kerala Decided Jul 15, 1958
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/717912

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
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Ref. No. 23 of 1957
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Order set aside

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Order set aside
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145 and 146(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Advocate M.U. Issac, Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Sivasankaran Thampi

Advocate S. Nilakanda Iyer, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145 and 146(2)
Reported In
AIR1959Ker55; 1959CriLJ196

Excerpt

- .....amount equal to the rent for one month. he held the petitioner to be liable to pay this amount. this order is sought to be revised in these proceedings. 2. the only ground on which i consider, that the matter can be reported to the high court for necessary action is, that the magistrate had no-jurisdiction to make any such enquiry or to pass such an order. there is no specific provision of law empowering the magistrate to resort to such summary proceedings. counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter must be decided in a suit which may be instituted by the receiver against the petitioner. on the other hand the learned public prosecutor maintained, that by reason of the provision in section 146, sub-section (2), cri. p. c., the magistrate has the same powers as under the civil procedure code, the learned public prosecutor was able to placer reliance only on order 40 rule 4 c. p. c. but this dealt with the enforcement of the duties of the receiver and has nothing to do with the claim which the receiver may leave as against his lessee, i therefore recommend, that the order of the magistrate may be set aside and the receiver may be directed to a fresh suit. i am not convinced, that the order of the magistrate can be revised on any other ground. the case will therefore be reportedto the high court, the records will be transmitted forthwith.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The Revision Petitioner is a lessee under the Village Officer who is the Receiver of the properties in a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal P. C. The term of the lease was one year which expired on 16-2-1957. The Receiver as well as one of the parties to the proceedings under Section 145 complained to the Magistrate that the Revision Petitioner had overcropped the cocoanuts in the properties during the currency of his lease and had thus caused damage.

The Magistrate himself made a personal inspection of the properties and caused the bunches of cocoanuts in some of the trees, to be examined. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner had cropped cocoanuts in excess of those which could be cropped reasonably, and estimated the damage at an amount equal to the rent for one month. He held the petitioner to be liable to pay this amount. This order is sought to be revised in these proceedings.

2. The only ground on which I consider, that the matter can be reported to the High Court for necessary action is, that the Magistrate had no-jurisdiction to make any such enquiry or to pass such an order. There is no specific provision of law empowering the Magistrate to resort to such summary proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the matter must be decided in a suit which may be instituted by the Receiver against the Petitioner.

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor maintained, that by reason of the provision in Section 146, Sub-section (2), Cri. P. C., the Magistrate has the same powers as under the Civil Procedure Code, The learned Public Prosecutor was able to placer reliance only on Order 40 Rule 4 C. P. C. But this dealt with the enforcement of the duties of the Receiver and has nothing to do with the claim which the Receiver may leave as against his lessee, I therefore recommend, that the order of the Magistrate may be set aside and the Receiver may be directed to a fresh suit. I am not convinced, that the order of the Magistrate can be revised on any other ground. The case will therefore be reportedto the High Court, The records will be transmitted forthwith.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial