IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No 401 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMKISHORE NANDKISHORE DELHIWALA Versus BABULAL BARELAL SINDERIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Criminal Revision Application No. 401 of 1988 MR TS NANAVATI for Petitioner MR JJ YAJNIK for Respondent No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 2 2. Criminal Revision ApplicationNo 21 of 1989 MR TS NANAVATI for Petitioner MR JJ YAJNIK for Respondent No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA Date of decision: 14/07/97 ORAL JUDGEMENT The respondent no.1 filed Revision Application No. 162 of 1987 in the Court of ld.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, which came to be dealt with by the ld. Presiding Officer of Court No.3. By order dated 18th March 1988, the ld. Judge was pleased to set aside the order of the ld. Executive Magistrate, who had directed the petitioner before the ld. Sessions Judge, to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the original applicant. The ld. Judge, in his elaborate order running into 15 typewritten pages, has dealt with the matter very succinctly and has correctly come to the conclusion that the powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have been invoked and exercised by the ld. Executive Magistrate, when there was no likelihood of breach of peace and the incident had happened about two months prior to the initiation of the proceedings in respect of which, already police complaint was filed and some proceedings were initiated. Under the circumstances, when very jurisdictional fact was found lacking, obviously, the order of the ld. Executive Magistrate could not have been sustained. That is exactly what the ld. Sessions Judge has done and I do not see any merit in the revision application and therefore, the same is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. ***** sreeram.