Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)Chaturgun Turha And Ors. vs Jamadar Mian on 22 December, 1960
Then, the fact that the obstruction in this case had been caused during the pendency of the proceeding, cannot be a reason for holding that the instant case can be distinguished from Chaturgun Turha's case. It is difficult to interpret Sub-section (2) of Section 147 as incorporating an enabling clause as well as a disabling clause in the same sub-section. That is to say, it is not possible to hold that a Magistrate cannot order removal of an obstruction caused prior to the initiation of a proceeding, but that he has power to order removal of an obstruction caused during the pendency of the proceeding. In my opinion, the Sub-section which has fallen for interpretation should be interpreted as a whole. The last submission of learned counsel for the first party, to the effect that the direction of the learned Magistrate should be so remodelled that it will be permissible for the first party to remove the obstruction, cannot also be accepted. A remodelling of the order of the learned Magistrate by this Court will, in effect, be the same as permitting a Magistrate to pass such an order. It appears to me that the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge must be accepted upon the interpretation put upon Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court.
Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1