RAM DEO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application under section 482 CrPC the applicants assail the order dated 24-3-1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad in criminal revision no. 194 of 1982 (copy annexure 7).

(2.) FACTS sufficient for the disposal of this application are these : There is an area of land measuring 124 bighas and 10 biswas in village Pali Karanpur, police station Sarai Inayat, Tahsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad. Every year this land goes under water during rainy season. This land was given to opposite parties nos.2 to 23 for a period of 5 years ending June, 1981. When the land came out of water, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, directed the opposite parties nos.2 to 23 not to cultivate the land. In accordance with the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 29-10-1981, the land was allotted to applicants nos.1 to 36 along with 15 others. As the 15 other persons did not accept the land allotted to them, it vested in the Gaon Sabha, Pradhan of Gaon Sabha is applicant no. 37. There was dispute about the crop which stood in the land in or about February, 1982. On 19-2-1982, the Station Officer, Police Station Sarai Inayat submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Phoolpur (copy annexure 4) that there was dispute between the parties in respect of the harvesting of the crop, that there was apprehension of berach of peace and that therefore the crop be attached and given in the custody of a supurdar. The Magistrate felt satisfied by the police report and consequently on 20-2-1982, the Magistrate passed a composite order under sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (copy annexure 5). First he passed order under section 145 (1) and then he passed order under section 146. The supervisor qanoongo was appointed Receiver. Against the order of attachment passed under section 146 (1), Basdeo and others opposite parties 2 to 23 filed criminal revision no. 194 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. It was contended before him that in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) CrPC the revision was not maintainable. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185, the Sessions Judge held that the order of attachment was not an interlocutory order and that, therefore, the revision could be entertained by him and was not barred by the provisions of section 397 (2). On merits the Sessions Judge found that the order of attachment was not a speaking one and that therefore, it had to be quashed.

(3.) SUB-section (1) of Section 297 empowers the High Court or a Sessions Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. In other words this subsection has given revisional power to the High Court or the Sessions Court.