KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Saxena, J. This revision application is directed against the judge ment and order dated 31-8-1992 passed by learned incharge Sessions Judge, Ghazibad Sri J. S. Dubey in Criminal revision No. 247/92 Ashvini Kumar v. Krishna Kumar and others, filed against the order dated 30-6 1992 passed by the learned 1st Addl. C. J. M , Ghaziabad, The learned Addl. C. J. M. 1st had ordered the police officer Sahanigate to seize the vehicle No. DEP-7409 having now registration No, C1f-276. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that the impugned order dated 31-8-199z of the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad had not been passed in a legal and valid manner and therefore, is liable to et aside. The revisionist has filed a certified true copy of the order sheet of the file of the Court below. A perusal thereof, showed that the Court below on 7-8-1992 had fixed 10-8-1992 for decision of the revision application before him numbered as criminal revision No. 247/92 Ashvini Kumar v. Krishna Kumar on 7-8-1992. The learned court below had ordered for summoning of the record and issued notice to the opposite party, fixing 23- 8-1992 for arguments. In the order dated 23/24-8-1992 the learned counsel for the revisionist requested the Court below to fix 4-9-1992 for summary hearing of the revision applica tion although till then opposite party had not been served with the notice. Surprisingly however without waiting for the date fixed, the learned lower court on 31-8-1992 i. e. prior to the dated fixed had entertained the application of the revisionist containing the prayer that the revision application be heard on 3i-8-19l2 and offer allowing the same passed the impugned order. The opposite party Krishna Kumar now revisionist, was not served with the notice of the revision application which was allowed in a highly illegal manner by ths learned incharge Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad without hearing him. 2 The dispute relates to the custody of a motor vehicle, the regisrered owner of which was Krishna Kumar as was evident from the certified true copy of the order sheet and also from some other documents filed by the revisionist which showed that the vehicle was registered in his name. I, however, propose to give no finding on the question of the ownership of the vehicle as it was beyond the scope of this revision application. The impugned order having been passed by the exercise of his jurisdiction in a highly illegal manner by the learned lower court, was liable to be set aside. 3. The revision application is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned incharge Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad dated 31-8-1992 is set aside. The case is sent back to the court of the 1st Addl. C. J. M. , Ghaziabad with the direction to get implemented his order dated

(2.) 0-6-1992 and, thereafter, expedi- tiously pass appropriate order regarding the release of the motor vehicle under consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 4. Let a Copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. .