VASU Vs. T UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the complainant in C. C. 249 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. The complaint alleged offences under S.406, 420, 189, 193, 209 and 211 IPC. against the first respondent herein and another person with reference to a tractor of which the registration certificate stands in the name of the first respondent. The case of the complainant was that he purchased the tractor from the first respondent. Subsequent to the complaint, a search warrant was issued and the tractor was searched and produced before the court. The revision petitioner as well as the first respondent filed claim petitions under S.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate directed the tractor to be released to the custody of the complainant revision petitioner on execution of bond and subject to certain conditions. This order was challenged by the first respondent before the Sessions Court, Palghat in R. P. No. 42 of 1982. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order and directed the return of the tractor to the first respondent on bond. It is this order which is challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the order of the learned Magistrate being one under S.451 of the Code is an interlocutory order which could not be challenged in revision ia the light of S.397(2) of the Code. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Pathu v. State of Kerala and others ( 1975 KLT 696 ), Nathu Lal v. State ( 1976 CriLJ 358 ) and S.S. Khanderai v. State of Maharashtra ( 1979 CriLJ 1457 ). Learned counsel for the first respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court noted in 1980 CriLJ NOC 6.

(3.) In Pathu's case this court had to deal with the question whether a revision lies against an order of disposal under S.451 of the Code at the instance of a stranger. In such a case, the order under S.451 of the Code assumes characteristics of a final order and therefore it could not be treated as an interlocutory order and revision will lie. In the course of the discussion, this court observed that if the order passed is on a petition under S.451 of the Code moved by a party to the proceeding it will have to be treated as an interlocutory order and the same could not be challenged in revision.