RAM LAL AND ANR. Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated thus : proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were taken by the Magistrate with respect to plot no. 264, situate in village Hallumajra, P. S. Fatehpur. This plot was found to be sowed with crop. The Magistrate ordered attachment of the crop. The crop was given to the supurdagi of the present revisionists. Both parties filed their respective written statements alleging their possession. The crop was estimated by the police to be of Rs. 1725/ -. Later on, the supurda -gars were allowed to harvest the crop and deposit the amount. On the next date, the supurdagars were restrained from harvesting the crop till further orders. The supurdagars then requested for expenses. Ultimately, they moved an application on 20th April, 1972, that the opposite parties and others had committed theft of the crop in between the night of 17th and 18th April, 1972. A report under Section 379 IPC was also lodged by them. A report from the police was called for. The police, however, did not find any case of theft having been made out and submitted a final report. The Magistrate then called upon the supurdagars to deposit the amount of Rs. 1725/ -. This was objected to by the supurdagars. Their objections were ultimately rejected and the Magistrate by virtue of an order dated 29th June, 1972 asked the supurdagars to deposit this amount. Against this order, the supurdagars, namely, the present revisionist went up in revision. The revision, however, was rejected, and that is how the present revision has been filed.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised from the other side who were not made parties but on behalf of one Talam, Sri Rajvanshi appeared and the objection was that since opposite parties were not made parties, the revision should be held as bad. I would have been inclined to allow this point, but I find that the order of the Magistrate being erroneous and illegal, it has to be quashed and, therefore, I do not think it was necessary to ask the revisionists to make interested persons parties to the revision. I am not entering into the question whether it was the matter between the Court and the supurdagars with which the other party was not concerned.

(3.) AS a result, I would allow the revision and quash the order of the Magistrate dated 29th June, 1972. The record will now go back to the trial Court for taking such necessary action on the lines indicated above as he may be inclined to take.