Chapter X
Section 141 CrPC: Procedure on order being made absolute and consequences of disobedience
New Law Update (2024)
Section 152 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural / Administrative
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When an order has been made absolute under section 136 or section 138, the Magistrate shall give notice of the same to the person against whom the order was made, and shall further require him to perform the act directed by the order within a time to be fixed in the notice, and inform him that, in case of disobedience, he will be liable to the penalty provided by section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(2) If such act is not performed within the time fixed, the Magistrate may cause it to be performed, and may recover the costs of performing it, either by the sale of any building, goods or other property removed by his order, or by the distress and sale of any other movable property of such person within or without such Magistrate’s local jurisdiction and if such other property is without such jurisdiction, the order shall authorise its attachment and sale when endorsed by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the property to be attached is found.
(3) No suit shall lie in respect of anything done in good faith under this section.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 141(1)
This sub-section mandates the Magistrate to inform the person of the absolute order, specify a time for compliance, and warn them about the penalty under Section 188 IPC for non-compliance. It ensures due process and informs the individual of their legal obligations and the consequences of disobedience.
Section 141(2)
This crucial sub-section empowers the Magistrate to physically enforce the order by causing the act to be performed if the person fails to comply. It also provides a clear mechanism for recovering the costs incurred, including through the sale of property, even beyond the Magistrate’s immediate jurisdiction, highlighting the enforceability of such orders.
Landmark Judgements
Murlidhar Singh v. State of U.P. (1975 Cr.L.J. 1167 (All)):
This judgment clarified the scope of the Magistrate’s power to recover costs under Section 141(2) CrPC. It held that the recovery mechanism is an integral part of the enforcement of orders made absolute under Sections 136 or 138, enabling the Magistrate to ensure compliance even if the original act is not performed by the defaulting party.
Surendra Nath v. State of U.P. (1981 Cr.L.J. 1163 (All)):
The Allahabad High Court, in this case, further elaborated on the procedure for the sale of property under Section 141(2) for the recovery of costs. It emphasized that such sale must strictly adhere to the legal provisions to ensure that the rights of the property owner are protected while facilitating the recovery of expenses incurred by the State in performing the directed act.