NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. D. Dube, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur, refusing to implead the revisionist as a party.

(2.) THE facts of this case are very brief. On an application of Jai Prakash (opposity-party No. 10) and report of Station Officer, Police-Station Buxa, district Jaunpur, the Magistrate had passed a preliminary order dated 3rd August, 1988. On 30-8-1988, the revisionist had moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he was owner and in possession over the property. He was away at Bombay to the proceedings under Sec tion 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the-Code) were initiated. THE learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings on 13-9- 1988 on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He released the property in favour of opposite-parties 2 and 9. THE applica tion of the revisionist for being impleaded was also rejected. It is worth mentioning that opposite-party No. 10 had riled a revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge. It was rejected. THE opposite-party No. 10 has filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge passed in the revision.

(3.) IT was argued from the side of learned counsel for the revisionist that in sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to implead a person. The lower court was only required to see that the person seeking impleadment was an interested person. Since the revisionist was saying that be was owner and in possession of the property, then it was sufficient to indicate that he was interested person. He had come to the court at the earliest opportunity as soon as he came to know about the initia tion of the proceedings.