MOHD LATIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. Present Sri R. N. Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Abdul Jabbar, Advocate for opposite parties. In this writ petition, the interim order in favour of the petitioners was vacated on 5-8-2004.

(2.) WITH the consent of the parties, the petition has been heard and is being disposed of today itself.

(3.) AFTER considering the submission of both the sides, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2000 mentioned above was binding on the Magistrate. He could not have reopened the issue ignoring the conclusion drawn by the Revisional Court and could not have come to a contrary conclusion in order to finally dispose of the proceeding by making a conditional order absolute. This is entirely against judicial propriety and judicial discipline. If the respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by any finding or observation of the Revisional Court in Revision No. 169 of 2000, he could have challenged the same in the High Court by appropriate proceedings. This was not done. In view of this, the Magistrate, in my opinion committed gross illegality and went beyond his jurisdiction to reopen the issue to record a finding that the property in dispute in proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. is different than the property involved in civil suit between the parties. The confirmation of the order dated 18-12-2002 of the Magistrate by subsequent Revision No. 363 of 2003 for the same reasons is also improper and illegal.