CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.13684 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) ********** UPENDRA SAH, SON OF LATE KOKAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ASHARGANJ, P.S. ASHARGANJ, DISTT. MUNGER. ------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHAGWAN PODDAR, SON OF LATE DAROGY PODDAR 3. SHYAM SUNDAR PODDAR, SON OF BHAGWAN PODDAR BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – ASHARGANJ, P.O. & P.S. ASHARGANJ, (TARAPUR) DISTT. MUNGER ------OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Shri Dhruv Kr. Sinha, Senior Advocate. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Jha, Advocate. Shri Satyaveer, Advocate. For the State : Shri Amrendra Prasad, A.P.P. For the Opposite parties 2 & 3 : Shri Shivaji Pandey, Senior Advocate. Shri B.N. Tiwary, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Munger, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2002 and for further confirmation of the order dated 1.3.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarapur, in Case No. 190 of 1999 under Section 145 Cr. P.C. by which the Magistrate had declared the possession of the petitioner upon the disputed land. 2. It is undisputed that the petitioner was the first party before the S.D.J.M., Tarapur whereas the opposite parties were second party and after having heard and considered the claims and 2 counter claims of the parties, it held that the petitioner 1st party was in possession of the land and the order was to be in existence till such time as competent Civil Court had decided the issue. As against this, the opposite party no. 2 went before the Revisional Court but, the Revisional Court decided the matter only on two points; (i) that the S.D.J.M. Tarapur had passed two contradictory orders in two cases with respect to the some disputed land between the same parties, (ii) that the S.D.J.M. Tarapur in Case No. 190 of 1999 had reversed the order of the Revisional Court passed in case No. 249 of 1996 which was not permitted. 3. To understand this part of the order, it is essential to explain that in fact, earlier, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. had been initiated between the present parties which was numbered as case No. 249 of 1996 in which the S.D.J.M. had confirmed the possession of the opposite parties on the disputed land which was upheld by the Revisional Court. However, it appears that the said proceeding had been initiated sometime in the year 1996 in which final orders were passed on 2.9.1996 and the question of possession of the opposite parties in the last two months was obviously before the order dated 2.9.1996. It is, therefore, manifest that there was an intervening period of at least three years between the two proceedings. In the present proceeding the S.D.J.M., Tarapur by an order dated 1.3.2002 had confirmed the possession of the petitioner on the disputed lands, in the last two months. To assume that the position existing in 1996 was still subsisting in 1999 only on the basis of the decision in the 3 earlier proceeding is not permissible, in my view. 4. Moreover, it is well established that every case has to be decided on the basis of evidence led in the said proceeding and if the parties had led their evidence in the instant case, the decision of the S.D.J.M. could not be set aside only on the basis of an earlier decision in another proceeding. 5. It has been further submitted on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 that in fact the order of the S.D.J.M. is perverse inasmuch as it did not consider the documents filed by the opposite parties nor has it come to a finding as to why he rejected the same and, therefore, it is a good case for remand for a fresh consideration of the issue. I do not see any merit in this argument since the final orders were passed way back in the year 2000, and to remand the matter after a lapse of ten years would only protract the dispute between the parties. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2002 is quashed and the order dated 1.3.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Tarapur, in Case No. 190 of 1999 by which the learned Magistrate declared the possession of petitioner upon disputed land between the parties is confirmed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 9th July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)