D iN THE HIGH CGLER? OF JUQES£?URE AT E§L§$¥GR §Emimé ReviEima Gaza Na. 3m a)?“ 21122 Petitiona Napeich son of '§‘u:§1L castg Dhabi, aged Pianiiff abaut 70 yeam, reside??? as“ v§%%age Katkona, Thana: Lak‘nanpur, Tah: Ambikapw, Dist : Saygaja {6.6.}. Versus Resnondents Gansu. son of Jhappad, aged about Defendants 35 years, Harinandan. Son of Genda, aged ' about 24 years, Dhanuram, son of Duias, aged about 28 years, j *‘f Respomdents 1 to 3 are residents of viliage Katkona Thana ' Lakhanpour, Tah: Ambikaour, dist : Sarguja (C.G.) 4. State of Chhat‘dsgarh. A §CRiMiNAL REV§$§O£N UNDER SEC‘NSN 3971 £01 O? THE CODE C3? GRiMiNAL PRQGEDURE {SB: Hon’bae Shri Justice TP. $harma} Presem: Smt. Aniu Ahuja, Advocate for the peti‘tionei None for the respondents No. t to 3. Shri D.K. Gwaire Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/tespondent No. 4. ORDER; (Passed an 10m Match, 24mg; 1.. This revision is ditected against the order dated 3.4.2002 .passed by $essions Judge, Ambikapur in Misceiianeous Criminai Case No. 144/94. whereby the iearned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur has modified the order dated 9.4.99 passed by Sub-Divisionat Magistrate, Ambikapur in Case No. 80/99 that the present appiicant Napeth is not in possession of the ianoi. Notice has been sen/ed on the respondents No. ”i to 3. but no one present on benaif of the respondents No. 1 to 3. The order dated 943$ passed by Sub-Divisionat Magistrate, Ambikapur reveals that the finding reiating to the possession of the (2) appiinant Napeth was withoui considefing ihe fact$ and the evidence availame on recard and simpliciior it i$ a dropping of proceeding. 4. The order impugned and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur perused. Without taking into consideration the material availabie on record and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the iearned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur has while dropping the proceeding under section 145 of the of the Code of Cri'rninai Procedure, V recorded one line finding that the petitioner is in poesession of the iand. 5. The order was chaiienged in revieion and the aforesaid finding was set i aeide by the order impugned and it is recorded by the revisionai court that the petitioner is not in possession. When the case is not reached to ‘ its iogicai eonclusion, then both the courts beiow was not required to give its finding W reiating to possession of the’party. i—‘inding reiating to possession of the petitioner by $ub-Divisionai Magistrate; Ambikapur and a finding that the petitioner is not in possession by teamed Sessions Judge, Ambikapur is not just and proper. 6. Consequentiy, both the findings relating to possession is liabie to be set aside and hereby set aside. 7. in View of the above order, M.{Cri.)P. 4215/2U02, applioation for condonation of deiay aiso stands disposed of. ///K /4 ,»~/§d/_ Ty. Sham“ Judge get 7 //