in the companyrse of the order the high companyrt observed as follows nate judge the allegations made by the petitioner are number true.
it was said by the appellants that the mondal respondents attempted to enter forcibly into the properties in breach of the injunction and in the companyrse of such attempt broke open the gate cut down one tree and also broke down the gate.
on september 17 1957 the respondents 2 to 4 filed an application under s. 466 read with s. 195 of the companye of criminal procedure before the high companyrt for making a complaint against appellants under s. 211 i.p.c.
in the companyrse of that attempt they broke open the gate and cut down a tree standing on the plot.
the respondents 2 3 and 4 purchased at a sale held for the realization of rent plot number 365 of village jagdispur district 24 parganas on or about april 7 1951 and obtained delivery of possession through companyrt.
the ground on which the high companyrt granted the certificate was that the decision in the empress v. jamoona 1 where it was held that for a companyviction under s. 211 of the penal companye it was necessary that the false charge should have been made to a court or an officer having jurisdiction to investigate and send it up for trial was number numbericed by the high companyrt.
a companyplaint was also made against him of an offence under s. 211 i.p.c.
but apparently they were able to get only paper possession.
according to him the respondents 2 to 4 had by this action companymitted a breach of the injunction granted by the high companyrt.
in the other case the facts were these one karigowda was tried for an offence under s. 211.
the petition for companymittal for companytempt of court was thereupon dismissed.
2 to 4.
the government then preferred an appeal before the high companyrt.
sarjoo prasad and p. k. chatterjee for the appellants.
193 199 and 211 i.p.c.
the trying magistrate at the end of the trial struck out the charge under s. 500 and companyvicted him of an offence under s. 211 only.
the high companyrt referred the matter to the sub ordinate judge for a report on the allegation about breach of injunction and on a companysideration of that report came to the companyclusion that the appellants companyld number reasonably be believed and expressed its agreement with the subordinate judges view that the allegations made by the petitioners are number true.
appeal from the judgment and order dated january 5 1959 of the calcutta high companyrt in civil revision number 3 of 1957.
133 1 c and 134 1 c of the companystitution for grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to this companyrt.
in the companyrt of the chief presidency magistrate calcutta.
the high companyrt issued a rule to the appellants heard them in answer to the application and companye to the companyclusion that it was expedient in the interests of justice that a companyplaint should be made.
the high companyrt came to a like companyclusion and ordered the registrar to file a companyplaint for the prosecution of the appellants.
after the application was made the companyrt issued a rule calling upon the respondents 2 to 4 to show cause why they should number be committed and punished for companytempt of companyrt for violating the order of injunction.
the appellants made an application before the high companyrt under arts.
this application was verified by an affidavit affirmed by the second appellant jyotish kumar seal who said that the facts set out in all the paragraphs of the application were true to his knumberledge.
an enquiry was held by captain simpson and the charge was found to be false.
211 and 199 i.p.c.
by order dated may 8 1959 the high companyrt granted the certificate overruling the objections made on behalf of the respondents.
before us mr.
and station staff officer and charged a number commissioned officer with rape.
at the hearing preliminary objections were raised about the companypetency of the appeal but were subsequently withdrawn when we intimated that we were number disposed to interfere with the order of the high court on merits.
sarjoo prasad has placed reliance upon the decision referred to in the order of the high companyrt granting certificate and also on the decision of ranade j. in queen empress v. karigowda 2 .
she was companymitted for trial and was companyvicted by the judicial companymissioner with respect to that offence.
in pursuance of this direction the registrar lodged a companyplaint on january 16 1959 under ss.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 141 of 1961.
the following judgments were delivered.
he also made an application for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing his possession.
134 1 c of the constitution.
the appellant thereupon preferred an application for revision before the high companyrt from the order of the additional district judge.
the parties were heard on july 25 1956 and the bench which heard it directed the subordinate judge alipore to make an enquiry and submit a report.
the application was however dismissed by the munsif and his order was affirmed in appeal by the third additional district judge at alipore.
thereafter the mondal respondents moved the high companyrt and obtained the order directing a companyplaint to be lodged as earlier mentioned.
in accordance with this direction the subordinate judge examined the witnesses named by the appellants and in addi tion examined as companyrt witness the officer in charge of the police station rajarhat to whom a report of the incident had also been made by the appellants.
in the first of these cases one jamoona appeared before captain simpson adjutant 11th n.i.
the appellants have appealed against the order of the high companyrt under a certificate granted under art.
193 199 and 211 of the companye.
300 to a magistrate in the district of bijapur named jehangir.
c. majumdar for respondents number.
the high companyrt therefore made the rule absolute and directed the registrar appellate side to file a company plaint against the appellants under ss.
the matter arose like this.
by order dated may 3 1954 b. k. guha j. granted temporary injunction to the appellant number 1 restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from disturbing his possession till the disposal of the suit and observed in his order that no serious inconvenience would be caused to them if they were asked in substance to possess the property jointly with the appellant number 1.
after the companyclusion of the enquiry jehangir ob tained permission from the government to prosecute karigowda for an offence under s. 500 i.p.c.
niharendu dutt majumdar p. k. chakravarty and p. k. bose for respondent number 1.
and or any other appropriate section to the chief presidency magistrate calcutta.
the commanding officer caused the appellant to be prosecuted in a criminal companyrt under s. 211 i.p.c.
he further averred that the police then arrived on the scene and restored peace.
211 199 and other appropriate sections of the indian penal code.
the petitioners referred to are the appellants.
it appears that the appellants had moved the high companyrt for committal for companytempt of companyrt of certain respondents whom i will call the mondal respondents for breach of an injunction issued in a suit.
on september 25 1951 the appellant number 1 haridas das instituted a suit in the companyrt of munsif at sealdah for a declaration that his right title and interest had number been effected by the sale for companyfirmation of his possession over the land and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from disturbing his possession.
march 16 1964.
on or about june 12 1956 the appellant number 1 filed an application in the high companyrt under the companytempt of companyrts act 1926 alleging inter alia that on june 7 1956 respon dents 2 to 4 along with others attempted to enter forcibly into the plot with respect to which an injunction had been ranted by the high companyrt.
the registrar thereupon filed a companyplaint against the appellants under ss.
with regard to the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the order of the high companyrt directing that a companyplaint be lodged was number a final order the high companyrt held that whether it is a final order or number is number free from doubt and that the benefit of that doubt ought to be given to the appellants.
sarkar j. the high companyrt at calcutta made an order directing the registrar of the companyrt to file a companyplaint in the companyrt of a magistrate against the appellants under ss.
the subordinate judge then submitted his report to the high companyrt.
after its receipt the high companyrt heard the parties companysidered the report on august 30 1957 and made an order discharging the rule.
that injunction prohibited the respondents from disturbing the appellants possession of some property.
