Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Pratap And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)WLC760, 1997(1)WLN195
JUDGMENT Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. This Petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dt. 3.2.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh Town, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners on the ground the order dt. 25.8.84 of the learned SDM Hanumangarh under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. by which a receiver was appointed on the subject matter of dispute was an interlocutory order and as such the revision petition was not maintainable.
2. The brief facts are that on the complaint filed by the police, the learned SDM passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. in respect of the disputed agricultural land measuring 25 bighas, described in the impugned order and directed the parties concerned to put in written statement of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession on the said land. Learned Magistrate also considered the case to be one of emergency under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C., attached the disputed land and appointed the SHO, PS: Hanumangarh as receiver thereon.
3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who relying on the case of Yaqub Ali v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1994 RLR (2)607, wherein a single bench of this Court has held that if attachment order is passed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. on the ground on emergency then such order should be treated as interlocutory, rejected the revision petition. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the relevant record.
5. At the very outset, I may respectfully mention that the view taken by learned SB in Yakub Ali's case (supra) is per incuriam and against the law laid down by the DB of this Court in Sitaram v. Ghasiram and Ors. 1980 (Suppl.) Cr. L.R.(Raj.)-II 20, where in it has been clearly held that an order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. is a final order and not an interlocutory order and as such an order is open to revision. It appears that Sitaram's case (supra) was not brought to the learned SB.
6. In view of this the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and has committed an illegality in not deciding the revision petition on merits and dismissing the same on the ground that impugned order was interlocutory. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 3.2.97 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be sustained.
7. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed and the order dt. 3.2.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Hanumangarh is hereby set aside and he is directed to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioners on merits at his earliest convenience.