Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Magh Dass vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 28 July, 1987 cites

Mst. Narbada And Ors. vs Mohammad Hanif And Anr. on 16 November, 1981

Narbada v. Mohammed Hanif 1982 RLW 411. Despite the provision contained in Section 456, Gr. PC so as Section 151, Cr.PC is concerned, it is applicable to movable as well as immovable property. Section 456 Cr.PC no doubt, deals with the situation if a person is convicted for the offence committed in the manner mentioned therein and if he is put out of possession, the possession can be restored to him even by vacating the person in possession by force. The provision of Section 456, Cr.PC would not in any way affect the provision of Section 451, Cr.PC. The two provisions deal with two different situations. On account of Section 456, Cr.PC, Section 451 cannot be interpreted to mean that it applies only to movable property, more particularly when the legislature itself has explained clearly its mind that the word 'property' with include property 'of any kind'. The property may or not be taken possession of during investigation. If it is taken possession of during investigation, the relevant provision would be Section 451 and if it is not taken possession of during investigation, then in that situation. Section 456, Cr.PC would be attracted. Thus, even on merits, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1