GANESA MOORTHY Vs. STATEPOLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision case, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police that the revision case is not maintainable under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the Court below under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., refusal of return of properties. According to the learned Government Advocate, the order being passed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., is only an interlocutory in nature and such order is not open to challenge in the revision case, in view of the bar of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., which, is extracted hereunder.

(2.) The learned Government Advocate would also refer to the contents of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. which provides for passing of order pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial and therefore this revision case is against such interlocutory order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., which is extracted hereunder for appreciation of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel straight away would draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court in Crl.MD.No.30 of 2012 dated 27.01.2012 in the case of K.Basha vs State. The learned Government Advocate would draw reference to paragraph nos. 8 to 10 of the order, which is extracted hereunder: