SRI BANDHU Vs. SRI MUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. P. Mathur, J. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are as follows : At the instance of Bandhu a police report was given by the Station Officer Police Station Kichha, district Nainital on 27-9-1977 with regard to plots Nos. 75/1/2 and 91, measuring 2 acres. On the basis of this report vide his order dated 17-10-1977 the Sub- divisional Officer, Rudrapur, district Nainital, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. Bandhu thin moved an application on 18-12-1977 for possession over the standing crops. A report from the police station Kichha was obtained. It is dated 23-12-1977 and the Learned Magistrate passed an order of attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. in respect of Plot Nos. 75/1 and 91/2 and simultaneously directed the parties to go to the Civil Court to have their title and possession determined. This order was reiterated on 12-9-1978. Upon this Munna Singh filed a re vision which was decided on 21-1 i-1979 by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. He was of the view that the dispute originally was in respect of plot Nos. 75/1/2 and 91 measuring 2 acres only, while the attachment was wrongly made of plot Nos. 75/2 and 91/2 which were not required to be attached and about which there was no allegation of any apprehension of the breach of peace. Therefore, he directed remand of the case to the Magistrate for proceeding according to law. The parties then led evidence before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Rudrapur and the Sub-divisional Magistrate again passed an order in respect of plot Nos. 75/2 and 91 2 on 29-9-1980 holding that Munna Singh was in possession. Bandhu again went up in revision which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital on 14-4-1931 and the proceedings of the court below were quashed. Then Bandhu moved an application for release of the property in his favour. The Sub-divisional Magistrate concerned passed an order on 15-12-1981 directing the Station Officer, Police Station Kichha, to hand over the property to the party from whose possession it was taken. It appears that this order was not complied with for a pretty long time and, therefore, the Magistrate passed another order on 23-2-1982, holding that Munna Singh was in possession and directing release of the property, namely, plot Nos. 57/2 and 91/2, in his favour. Against this order Bandhu filed a revision before tlie Sessions Judge, Nainital, who by his impugned order dated 27-5-1982 direc ted remand of the case to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur for decid-' ing afresh the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in his judgment. The learned Judge was of the view that the Magistrate was competent to pa

(2.) S the order under Section 517, Cr. P. C. (old), which iS now equivalent to Section 452 of the (new Criminal Procedure Code ). ThiS reviSion waS numbered aS Criminal reviSion No. 32 of 1981.

(3.) NOW against an order passed under Section 452, Cr. P. C. an appeal can be directed under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code and when an appeal is provided a Revision will not lie. Therefore, whatever may be the position of the order dated 23-2-1982, a Revision against that order was not maintainable and the learned Sessions Judge went beyond his jurisdiction to entertain the revision at the instance of Bandhu and to pass the order dated 27-5-1982. This order, therefore, is an illegal order beyond the jurisdiction of the court passing it and has got to be quashed.