Bhanwar Singh Vs. Ajay Singh and ors.

Bhanwar Singh vs Ajay Singh and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 05, 1991

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760497

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760497
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.R. Arora, J.
Decided On: Feb 05, 1991
Case Number: S.B. Cri. Misc. Peti. No 334 of 1990
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145--Petitioner engaged advocate but neither he nor his advocate appeared before Additional District Magistrate--No evidence, led by petitioner--Court passed order on material on record--Held, it committed no illegality.;It is, also, equally true that the petitioner, after engaging ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhanwar Singh

Respondent

Ajay Singh and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1991(1)WLN505

Excerpt

.....when the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show his possession then the learned magistrate in passing the order dated december 6, 1989, declaring the possession of the party no. 1 ajaysingh over the plot in question, on the basis of the evidence produced by him, has not committed any illegality.;petition desmissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2 did not like to produce any evidence before the learned additional district magistrate then the additional district magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated december 6, 1989, declaring the possession of the non petitioner on the basis of the evidence available on record......6, 1989, passed by the additional district magistrate (city),jodhpur.2. the station house officer, police station, pratap nagar, jodhpur on march 4, 1989, filed a complaint in the court of the additional district magistrate (city), jodhpur, under section 145 cr. pc. the learned executive magistrate drew a preliminary order and issued notices to party no. 1 ajay singh and party no. 2 bhanwar singh. ajay singh produced his evidence, but the party no. 2 bhanwar singh did not produce any evidence and the learned executive magistgrate, after trial by his order dated december 6, 1989, considering the evidence produced by ajay singh and after looking to the record, came to the conclusion that party no. 1 ajay singh was in the possession of the plot in question. the learned magistrate, therefore, declared the possession of party no. 1 ajay singh over the plot in question on march 4, 1989. it is against this order that the present petition has been filed.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the non petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and perused the record of the ease.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the prelimiary order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned sessions judge, jodhpur, and engaged shri ramsukh sharma, advocate, to conduct his case. shri ramsukh sharma, advocate, informed him that as the revision petition has already been filed so now the petitioner is not required to attend the court of the additional district magistrate (city), jodhpur, where the proceedings under section 145 cr. pc are pending. the petitioner, therefore, though, attended each and every date of hearing in the revision petition pending before the learned sessions judge as per the advice of his counsel, but he did not appear before the learned additional district magistrate (city), jodhpur, and therefore, the proceedings against him proceeded ex-parte and the learned additional district.....

Full Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated December 6, 1989, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City),Jodhpur.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur on March 4, 1989, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, under Section 145 Cr. PC. The learned Executive Magistrate drew a preliminary order and issued notices to Party No. 1 Ajay Singh and Party No. 2 Bhanwar Singh. Ajay Singh produced his evidence, but the party No. 2 Bhanwar Singh did not produce any evidence and the learned Executive Magistgrate, after trial by his order dated December 6, 1989, considering the evidence produced by Ajay Singh and after looking to the record, came to the conclusion that Party No. 1 Ajay Singh was in the possession of the plot in question. The learned Magistrate, therefore, declared the possession of party No. 1 Ajay Singh over the plot in question on March 4, 1989. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the non petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the ease.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that against the prelimiary order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, and engaged Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, to conduct his case. Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, informed him that as the revision petition has already been filed so now the petitioner is not required to attend the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, where the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. PC are pending. The petitioner, therefore, though, attended each and every date of hearing in the revision petition pending before the learned Sessions Judge as per the advice of his counsel, but he did not appear before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, and therefore, the proceedings against him proceeded ex-parte and the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, passed the order dated December 6, 1989. It is, therefore, prayed that on the wrong advice of his counsel, the petitioner could not produce any evidence and could not contest the case pending before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur. The learned Counsel for the non petitioners on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, and contended that if the party No. 2 did not like to produce any evidence before the learned Additional District Magistrate then the Additional District Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated December 6, 1989, declaring the possession of the non petitioner on the basis of the evidence available on record.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has filed a revision petition challenging the prelinary order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate and that revision petition is still pending. But it is, also, equally true that the petitioner, after engaging Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, as his counsel, did not appear even on a single day before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur and did not produce any evidence. No affidavit of Shri Ramsukh. Sharma, Advocate, has been filed by the petitioner to show that he gave such advice to the petitioner. In the absence of the affidavit of Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not attend the proceedings pending before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur on the advice of Shri Ramsukh Sharma. The reasons given by the petitioner in the petition for his non appearance before the learned Magistrate does not inspire confidence. When the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show his possession then the learned Magistrate in passing the order dated December 6, 1989, declaring the possession of the party No. 1 Ajaysingh over the plot in question, on the basis of the evidence produced by him, has not committed any illegality.

7. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties Bhanwar Singh vs Ajay Singh and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.R. Arora, J.

Criminal