# Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mohd. Aslam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjeet-tanwar-manjeet-tanker-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49003
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 397/ 401- U.P Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act- 1955 -Sections
3/5A/8 -Transportation of Leather SkinsRelease of vehicle- From perusal of
Section 5A Cow Slaughter Act, it is very
much clear that there is no contravention
of transportation of cow skin leather from
outside of the State- In case where the
provisions of this Act or the related rules
in context of such, acquisition, disposal
and seizure are silent, the provision of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be
affected thereto- In such a matter, the
District Magistrate/Commissioner of the
Police has no jurisdiction to confiscate
such vehicle in the event of seizure of
vehicle by law enforcement officer- In
above
circumstances,
the
Judicial
Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the
Canter DL1GC5909 as being the case
property- It is, prima facie, established
that the skin leather of cow was not
transported
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of Cow Slaughter Act or rule of
Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Rules. In
above
circumstances,
the
Special
Magistrate, Agra has jurisdiction to decide
the release of the vehicle in question by
which the skin leather of cow or its
progeny
was
transported.
Learned
Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide the
release
application
of
the
revisionist/applicant and learned lower
court has illegally held that he has no
jurisdiction
to
hear
on
the
release
application of Canter DL1GC5909.

As Section, 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act does
not take into its ambit transportation of leather
skins hence the proceedings will be under the
Code of Criminal Procedure and not the Cow
Slaughter Act therefore, the Judicial Magistrate
has jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle as
being case property.( Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

9 All. Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
complainant to satisfy himself that the
complaint is not frivolous and that there is
evidence/material which forms sufficient
ground for the Magistrate to proceed to
issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It
is the duty of the Magistrate to elicit every
fact that would establish the bona fides of
the complaint and the complainant. Since
number of accused are residents beyond the
local limits of the trial court, as per
amended provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C.,
it is obligatory upon the Magistrate that
before summoning the accused, he shall
enquire into the case or direct the
investigation to be made by a police officer
or by such other person as he thinks fit for
finding out whether or not there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding against
the accused. In the present case, the learned
Magistrate has opted to hold such enquiry
himself.

7. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned
senior counsel assisted by Sunil Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri V.P.Srivastava,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Padmakar Pandey, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 and Sri Gaurav Kakkar,
Advocate and perused the record.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for
the parties and after perusing the material on
record, it is evident that the question before
this Court as to whether the order dated
16.11.2019 has been passed in correct
perspective or not? This Court is of the
opinion that the learned Magistrate in
exercise powers conferred under Section 202
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate may inquire into the
case himself or direct an investigation to be
made by the police officer or by such person
as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. In the instant case, specific
allegation against the petitioner is that he in
order to grab the company without any
resolution of Board of Directors as well as
without any permission of Registrar of
Companies submitted a renewal form before
the Assistant Director Factory (Karkhana),
Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur Division, Kanpur
alleging himself to be a proprietor and when
the authority asked for the resolution passed
by Board of Directors, the petitioner
submitted a forged and fabricated document
along with N.O.C. alleged to have been
issued by the respondent no.2/complainant,
thus to arrive at a just decision of the case it
was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate
to summon those documents from the
concerned authority and therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned order dated
16.11.2019, which has been rightly upheld by
the learned Sessions Court vide its Judgement
and order dated 29.09,2021.

9. In view of above, the instant petition
lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed

10. This Court appreciate the assistance
rendered by Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate in
the instant case.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 261
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. ASLAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2022

Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Irfan Raza Khan, Sr. Adv.
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 397/ 401- U.P Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act- 1955 -Sections
3/5A/8 -Transportation of Leather SkinsRelease of vehicle- From perusal of
Section 5A Cow Slaughter Act, it is very
much clear that there is no contravention
of transportation of cow skin leather from
outside of the State- In case where the
provisions of this Act or the related rules
in context of such, acquisition, disposal
and seizure are silent, the provision of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be
affected thereto- In such a matter, the
District Magistrate/Commissioner of the
Police has no jurisdiction to confiscate
such vehicle in the event of seizure of
vehicle by law enforcement officer- In
above
circumstances,
the
Judicial
Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the
Canter DL1GC5909 as being the case
property- It is, prima facie, established
that the skin leather of cow was not
transported
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of Cow Slaughter Act or rule of
Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Rules. In
above
circumstances,
the
Special
Magistrate, Agra has jurisdiction to decide
the release of the vehicle in question by
which the skin leather of cow or its
progeny
was
transported.
Learned
Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide the
release
application
of
the
revisionist/applicant and learned lower
court has illegally held that he has no
jurisdiction
to
hear
on
the
release
application of Canter DL1GC5909.

As Section, 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act does
not take into its ambit transportation of leather
skins hence the proceedings will be under the
Code of Criminal Procedure and not the Cow
Slaughter Act therefore, the Judicial Magistrate
has jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle as
being case property.( Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-
1. Crl. Misc. Application No.20507 of 2008
(Mohd. Haneef Vs St. of U.P. & ors. dec. on
08.01.2010)

2. Yaash Mohammad Vs St. of U.P & Ors., 2021
SCC Online Allahabad 608

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Irfan Raza Khan, learned
counsel for revisionist, Sri L.D. Rahbhar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The instant revision has been
preferred against the impugned order dated
11.11.2021 passed by learned Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra by which the
application of the revisionist/applicant for
release of Vehicle No. Eicher Canter DL 1
GC 5909 in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021,
under Sections 3/5A/8 Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, Police Station- Saiyan,
District- Agra was rejected.

3. The brief facts necessary for
disposal of this case are that on 24.03.2021
Sub-Inspector Virendra Kumar along with
his companion Constables Lalit Kumar,
Ravi Kant Yadav and Saurabh Kumar and
Driver Brij Kumar proceeded from Police
Station Sainya vide entry in general diary
report no. 27 at about 14:10 hours and were
busy in patrolling duty and when they
reached at Saiyan crossing they were
informed by the informer that a red colour
Tata Eicher Canter loaded with banned cow
skin was coming from the side of
Dhaulpur, Rajasthan to Agra. On the
information,
Sub-Inspector
Virendra
Kumar started checking the vehicles by
putting barrier near Saiyan Toll for
apprehending the aforesaid Canter and tried
to take public witnesses, but none agreed to
testify, under that compulsion the police
party
searched
each
other
and
no
9 All. Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
incriminating articles was found from any
members of the police party. As soon as the
informer saw the red colour Tata Eicher
Canter bearing Registration No. DL 1 GC
5909, he pointed out the police party and
left
from
the
place,
thereafter,
the
policemen signalled the driver of the
aforesaid Canter to stop the vehicle. On
seeing the police party, the driver stopped
the aforesaid vehicle some distance ahead
and started turning back the Canter in a
hurry, then the police party convinced that
there were definitely some illegal goods in
the Canter and they apprehended the driver
who told his name as Akash son of Man
Singh, resident of Mohalla- Maha Talee
Lane, Police Station- Shikohabad, District-
Firozabad and present address Tyagi
Chaupal near Chhatarpur Temple, Police
Station- Mehrauli, New Delhi and he also
told that his permanent address is village
Jarar, Police Station- Wah, District- Agra
and told that he is aged about 24 years. On
his personal search, a mobile phone of
OPPO company was recovered from the
right pocket of his trousers. The IMEI
numbers of the phone was obtained as (1)
863885033196312 (2) 863885033196304
and Rs. 3100/-and an Aadhar Card in the
name of Akash Pratiman Singh resident of
Mohalla-
Mahteli
Gali,
Shikohabad,
District Firozabad were also recovered
from him. On being asked about the reason
for turning the vehicle back, he told that the
vehicle was loaded with cow skin on which
the policemen removed the Tripal and
found 145 bundles of cow skin from which
smell of rotten meat was coming out and
Dr. Mahendra Verma, Veterinary Medical
Officer, Saiyan, Agra was asked to come at
the spot over phone who came there in no
time and after closely checking he told that
the bundles of the skin loaded in the Canter
is the skin of cow and took three pieces of
skin from different bundles for sample
which were separately kept in three jars and
sealed and sample seal was prepared. The
accused Akash could not produce the
papers of the vehicle, therefore, the
aforesaid vehicle was seized under Section
207 of Motor Vehicle Act and the accused
was arrested after informing him that his
act is punishable under Sections 3/5Ka/8 of
Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter (Prevention)
Act. The recovery memo was prepared on
the spot by Sub-Inspector Virendra Singh
and companion police constables and Dr.
Mahendra Verma. On the basis of recovery
memo, Case Crime No.0036 of 2021, under
Sections 3/5Ka/8 was registered against the
accused/Driver Akash, later on who was
released by the coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
24517 of 2021 (Akash vs. State of UP).

4. The revisionist is owner of the
aforesaid Vehicle No. Eicher DL 1 GC
5909 who moved an application for the
release of aforesaid Canter which was
rejected by learned Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Agra vide impugned order
dated 11.11.2021.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
impugned
order,
the
revisionist
has
preferred this revision and has filed the
photocopy of e-Way Bill System as
Annexure No.3, Registration Certificate of
Canter DL1GC5905, Fitness Certificate,
Permit,
Insurance
Certificate,
Motor
Insurance Certificate Cum GCCV- Public
Carriers Other Than Three Wheelers
Package Policy-Zone A (Annexure No.4),
Bill of Supply in favour of Maaz Traders,
Mohalla-
Peer
Khan
Soldpur
Road,
Gulaathi (BSR) Uttar Pradesh issued by
Maharashtra
Leather
Merchant
dated
22.03.2021 (annexure no.5), Extract of
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act (annexure no.6), copy of NPPA
document (annexure no.7), photocopy of
certified copy of impugned order dated
11.11.2021
passed
by
Special
Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case Crime
No. 36 of 2021, under Sections 3/5A/8
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.
Saiyan, District- Agra.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the lower court has
illegally held that in view of the law laid
down by this Court in "Yaash Mohammad
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
reported in 2021 SCC Online Allahabad
608" that the Canter was seized under
special criminal act and it has no
jurisdiction to release the Canter under
Sections 451, 452, 457 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and has rejected his release
application. It is further submitted that the
facts of the aforesaid case referred by
learned lower court while rejecting the
application do not apply in this case.
Learned counsel has submitted that this
Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.
20507 of 2008 (Mohd. Haneef vs. State of
UP and Others) decided on 08.01.2010
relying upon the order passed by this Court
dated 06.01.2005 in Criminal Revision No.
23 of 2005, the skin to be released in
favour of the accused-revisionist wherein it
is also held that "A perusal of above order
passed in Criminal Revision goes to show
that 456 pieces of leather were recovered
from possession of one Babu and a case
under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act
was registered. The applicant/revisionist
who is the owner of above leather,
approached the lower court for release of
the above leather pieces, which was
rejected
by
the
court
below.
The
submission was made by the learned
counsel for the revisionist in that case that
no offence under section 3/5/8 of Cow
Slaughter Act was made out as the leather
pieces were recovered and the recovery of
said leather pieces was not an offence
under the Act and only slaughtering and
keeping the beef is an offence under the
Cow Slaughter Act. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and without
going into the merits of the same, this
Court allowed the said revision and
directed the Magistrate to release 456
pieces of leather in favour of the
revisionist."

7. In view of above analogy, this
Court had allowed the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Mohd. Haneef vs.
State of UP and others (supra). Learned
counsel for revisionist has submitted that
on the above anology and the above law
laid down by this Court, the impugned
order dated 11.11.2021 passed by learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in
in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021 (State vs.
Manjeet Tanwar) is liable to be quashed
and the lower court may be directed to
release the aforesaid Eicher Canter bearing
Registration No. DL 1 GC 5909 in favour
of revisionist/applicant.

8. It has been further submitted by
learned counsel for revisionist that Section
2 (a) which deals definition read as
follows:-

Section 2 - Definitions

"In this act, unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject to
context- (a) ''Beef' means flash of cow but
does not include such flesh contained in
sealed containers and imported as such in
Uttar Pradesh."

9. It is further submitted that leather
does not fall within the definition of ''Beef',
9 All. Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
therefore, Canter cannot be seized under
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. It is
further submitted that the aforesaid Canter
was transporting the leather skins of cow
which is not prohibited by the provisions of
Cow
Slaughter
Act.
In
above
circumstances, learned lower court has
illegally held that it was contravention of
cow slaughter and it has no jurisdiction to
release the Canter.

10. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
release of the vehicle Eicher Canter bearing
Registration No. DL 1 GC 5909 and
submitted that learned lower court has
rightly held that it has no jurisdiction to
decide the release application of the
revisionist/applicant
and
rejected
the
release application according to law vide
impugned order dated 11.11.2021 which
requires no interference by this Court.

11.

I
have
given
thoughtful
consideration to the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
learned A.G.A. In this case, it is admitted to
the parties that the Eicher Canter DL 1 GC
5909 is seized in Crime No. 36 of 2021,
under Section 3/5A/8 of Uttar Pradesh Cow
Slaughter Act. It is also admitted to the
parties that the revisionist is the registered
owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Now, the
question arose whether transportation of
leather skin outside the State is contravening
the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act as
amended from time to time:-

"Section 3. Prohibition of Cow
Slaughter.- No person shall slaughter or
cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause
to be offered for slaughter, a cow, bull or
bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh,
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force or any usage or custom,
to the contrary notwithstanding.

5. Prohibition on sale of beef.-
Except
as
herein
excepted
and
notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no
person shall sell or transport or offer for
sale or transport or cause to be sold or
transported beef or beef-products in any
form except for such medicinal purposes as
may be prescribed.

Exception.- A person may sell
and serve or cause to be sold and served
beef or beef products for consumption by a
bona fide passenger in an air-craft or
railway train.

5-A. Regulation on transport of
cow etc. - (1) No person shall transport or
offer for transport or cause to be
transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the
slaughter whereof in any place in Uttar
Pradesh is punishable under this Act, from
any place within the State to any place
outside the State, except under a permit
issued by an officer authorised by the State
Government in this behalf by notified order
and except in accordance with the terms
and conditions of such permit.

(2) Such officer shall issue the
permit on payment of such fee not
exceeding five hundred rupees for every
cow, bull or bullock as may be prescribed:

Provided that no fee shall be
chargeable where the permit is for
transport of the cow, bull or bullock for a
limited period not exceeding six months as
may be specified in the permit.

(3)
Where
the
person
transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a
permit for a limited period does not bring
back such cow, bull or bullock into the
State within the period specified in the
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permit, he shall be deemed to have
contravened the provision of sub-section
(1).

(4) The form of permit, the form
of application therefor and the procedure
for disposal of such application shall be
such as may be prescribed.

(5) The State Government or any
officer authorised by it in this behalf by
general or special notified order, may, at
any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself,
or himself, as to the legality or propriety of
the action taken under this section, call for
and examine the record of any case and
pass such orders thereon as it or he may
deem fit.

(6) Where the said conveyance
has been confirmed to be related to beef by
the competent authority or authorised
laboratory under this Act, the driver,
operator and owner related to transport,
shall be charged with the offence under this
Act, unless it is not proved that the
transport medium used in crime, despite all
its precautions and without its knowledge,
has been used by some other person for
causing the offence.

(7) The vehicle by which the beef
or cow and its progeny is transported in
violation of the provisions of this Act and
the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and
seized by the law enforcement officers. The
concerned
District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do
all proceedings of confiscation and release,
as the case may be.

(8) The cow and its progeny or
the beef transported by the seized vehicle
shall also be confiscated and seized by the
law enforcement officers. The concerned
District Magistrate/ Commissioner will do
all proceedings of the confiscation and
release, as the case may be.

(9) The expenditure on the
maintenance of the seized cows and its
progeny shall be recovered from the
accused for a period of one year or till the
release of the cow and its progeny in
favour of the owner thereof whichever is
earlier.

(10)
Where
a
person
is
prosecuted for committing, abetting, or
attempting to an offense under Sections 3, 5
and 8 of this Act and the beef or cowremains in the possession of accused has
been proved by the prosecution and
transported things are confirmed to be beef
by the competent authority or authorised
laboratory, then the court shall presume
that such person has committed such
offence or attempt or abetment of such
offence, as the case may be, unless the
contrary is proved.

(11) Where the provisions of this
Act or the related rules in context of
search, acquisition, disposal and seizure
are silent, the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be
effective thereto.

5B- Insertion of Section 5B-.
Whoever causes any physical injury to any
cow or its progeny so as to endanger the
life thereof such as to mutilate its body or
to transport it in any situation whereby
endangering the life thereof or with the
intention of endangering the life thereof
does not provide with food or water shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one year and
which may extend to seven years and with
fine which shall not be less than one Lakh
9 All. Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
rupees and which may extend to three Lakh
rupees.

8. Amendment of section 8- (1)
Whoever contravenes or attempts
to
contravene or abets the contravention of
the provisions of Section 3, Section 5 or
Section 5-A shall be guilty of an offence
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than three
years and which may be extend to ten years
and with fine which shall not be less than
three Lakh rupees and which may extend to
five Lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever after conviction of
an offence under this Act is again guilty of
an offence under this Act, shall be punished
with double the punishment provided for
the said offence for the second conviction.

(3)
The
names
and
the
photograph of the person accused of the
contravention of the provision of Section 5A shall be published at some prominent
place in locality where the accused
ordinarily resides or to a public place, if he
conceals himself from the law enforcement
officers."

12. From perusal of Section 5A Cow
Slaughter Act, it is very much clear that
there is no contravention of transportation
of cow skin leather from outside of the
State. In such a matter, the District
Magistrate/Commissioner of the Police
has no jurisdiction to confiscate such
vehicle in the event of seizure of vehicle
by law enforcement officer. This Court in
Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2005 had
held that transport of cow skin leather
does not amount any contravention of
provisions of Cow Slaughter Act which is
followed by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application No.20507 of 2008 (Mohd.
Haneef vs. State of UP and others
decided on 08.01.2010).

13. In above circumstances, the
Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to
release the Canter DL1GC5909 as being
the case property. The ruling of Single
Bench of this Court in Yaash Mohammad
vs. State of UP (supra) on which learned
lower court has relied and held that the
lower court has no jurisdiction to release
the Canter in question is not applicable in
this case because in the aforesaid case the
application for the release of vehicle was
rejected on the ground that the cow or its
progeny was transported in contravention
of Section 5A of Uttar Pradesh Cow
Slaughter Act regarding which special
provisions were prescribed and only
District Magistrate/Commissioner of the
Police was authorised to pass order for
confiscation in the event of seizure of
cow or its progeny and transport medium.

14. It is further provided that in case
where the provisions of this Act or the
related
rules
in
context
of
such,
acquisition, disposal and seizure are
silent,
the
provision
of
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 shall be affected
thereto.

Section
5A
(11)
of
Cow
Slaughter Act reads as follows:-

"5A(11). Where the provision of
this Act or the related rules in context of
such, acquisition, disposal and seizure
are silent, the provision of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be
effective thereto."

15. From above discussion, it is,
prima facie, established that the skin leather
of
cow
was
not
transported
in
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contravention of the provisions of Cow
Slaughter Act or rule of Uttar Pradesh Cow
Slaughter Rules. In above circumstances,
the
Special
Magistrate,
Agra
has
jurisdiction to decide the release of the
vehicle in question by which the skin
leather of cow or its progeny was
transported.
Learned
Magistrate
has
jurisdiction
to
decide
the
release
application of the revisionist/applicant and
learned lower court has illegally held that
he has no jurisdiction to hear on the release
application of Canter DL1GC5909, hence,
the revision is liable to be allowed and
order of the lower court is liable to be setaside.

16. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is allowed. The impugned order dated
11.11.2021
passed
by
Special
Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra is set-aside and
learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Agra is directed to decide the release
application of applicant within a period of
one month from the date of production of
the certified copy of this order.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 268
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2610 of 2022

Naval Kishore & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Bala Nath Mishra, Sri Ram Vishal Mishra,
Sri Sachin Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Indra Jit Singh, Sri Rakesh
Chandra Upadhyay, Sri Sharad Tripathi, Sri
O.P. Sing, (Sr. Adv.)

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-
Sections
145
&
146
-
The
proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and
146 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the
power is conferred upon the executive
Magistrate. The object of this part is
merely to maintain law and order and to
prevent to breach of peace by maintaining
one or other parties of the possession,
which the court finds that they had
immediately before the dispute and until
the actual right of one of the parties has
been determined by the civil court. The
Magistrate should careful enough to see
that the criminal court are not being used
by the parties for the settlement of civil
dispute or for manoeuvring of possession
for the previous and subsequent civil
litigation or easy way of keeping the
possession of the property in dispute
without going to the civil court or for
driving the other side of the civil court to
prove his title. The action which may
ultimately be taken is not of punitive but
preventive one and for that purposes of is
provisional only, until such time, a formal
adjudication over the rights affected may
be obtained and carried into effect by the
competent court to deal with the matter in
due course of law. The action to be taken
is quasi executive action, and having for
its object and justification. The prevention
of breach of public peace, the existence of
dispute is likely ot cause breach of peace
is a condition laying at the root of the
power conferred.

The proceedings under Section 145 and 146 of
the Cr.P.C are preventive and not punitive, the
same to be taken recourse to for only
preventing the likelihood of breach of public
peace, and do not confer any right or title to
any of the parties, as the same is the domain of
the civil court and hence it is incumbent for the
Magistrate to prevent the misuse of the said
proceedings by either of the parties who may
attempt to possess the property in dispute by
circumventing the course of law. (Para 25)