Bayyarapu Suresh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
26. Further held at para. 8 of the said judgment as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)P.Hussain Chiddu Master vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 July, 2021
9) Subsequently, while relying on the said judgment of the
A.P. High Court, the Madras High Court in the case of S.V.
Chandran v. The State3 held that an order passed under Section
451 Cr.P.C. is amenable for revisional jurisdiction under Section
397(1) Cr.P.C. The Madras High Court at para 5 held that there
is a final determination of right of the party and such
determination cannot be construed as one of the interlocutory in
nature. Ultimately, the Madras High Court held at para.8 as
follows:
T.Shanmukha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 September, 2022
10. In Crl.P.No.2710 of 2021 on which reliance is placed by the Counsel for
the A.C.B., a learned Judge of this Court was examining the order passed by
the Magistrate dismissing a petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking
interim custody of the property. While referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., vs. State3, Amar Nath
vs. State of Haryana4 as also a decision of a Learned Judge of High Court of
Madras in S.V. Chandran vs. The State5, the Learned Judge re-affirmed the
legal position to the effect that an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C is not an
interlocutory order and it does not attract the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C
and as such a Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C is maintainable.
Accordingly, the Learned Judge held that the Criminal Petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable.
K R Kumar Reddy vs State Of Ap on 30 July, 2021
4) It is well settled law that an order passed under Section 451
Cr.P.C relating to interim custody of the vehicle is amenable for
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. It is not an
interlocutory order to attract the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
This Court in Criminal Petition No.3610 of 2021, dated
06.07.2021, clearly held while relying on the earlier judgment of
this Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. State1
that revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C lies against the order
passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Relying on the said judgment
of this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd1, the Madras High
Court in S.V.Chandran v. State2 also clearly held that revision
1
1981 CriLJ 1529
2
Order dated 17.12.2018 in Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2018 of Madras High Court.
1