CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHASTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 20-9-'75 setting aside the order dated 22-7-'75 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application of O. P. No. 2 for release of the properties which had been attached in pursuance of the processes issued against the applicant under Sec tions 82 and 83 Cr P.C. At the relevant time the applicant (Chandra Shekhar Shastri) was the Regis trar of Rishikul Brahmacharja Ashram, Hardwar, district Saharanpur. He was wanted in a ca

(2.) E undEr SEction 307 I P. C. from P.S. Hardwar. It is said that hE EvadEd his arrEst by thE policE whErE upon thE Court issuEd procEssEs against him undEr SEctions 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. SEvEral itEms 01 propErty bElonging to him wErE attachEd. SubsEquEntly, hE appEarEd in Court and was rElEasEd on bail. HE thEn madE a prayEr for rElEasE of his propErtiEs. ThE Court allowEd his prayEr and passEd an ordEr rElEasing all his propErtiEs. AftEr a fEw days O.P. No. 2 calling himsElf as officiating GEnE ral SEcrEtary of Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Hardwar madE an application that thE propErtiEs attachEd should not bE rElEasEd in favour of thE applicant as all thEsE propErtiEs bElongEd to thE Ashram, and not to thE applicant. ThE lEarnEd MagistratE rEjEctEd thE applica tion of O.P. No. 2. whErEupon O P. No. 2 wEnt up in rEvision. His rEvision was allowEd and thE lEarnEd SEssions JudgE rEmandEd thE casE to thE Court of thE lEarnEd MagistratE for dEciding thE claims of thE partiEs in rEgard to thE dis putEd propErtiEs in accordancE with thE provisions containEd in SEction 84 Cr P. C. FEEling aggriEvEd with this ordEr, thE applicant has comE up in rEvision to this Court. I havE hEard thE lEarnEd counsEl for thE applicant at sufficiEnt lEngth and I may say hErE at oncE that this rEvision must bE allowEd. ThE lEarnEd SEssions JudgE did not undErstand thE provisions of law corrEctly and manifEstly ErrEd in passing thE ordEr which hE passEd. UndEr SEction 84 Cr.P.C. claims and ob jEctions in rEgard to thE attachEd propEr ty can bE prEfErrEd only so long as that propErty continuEs to rEmain undEr at tachmEnt. In this casE, in pursuancE of thE procEssEs issuEd undEr SEctions 82 and 83 Cr.P. C., thE propErtiEs allEgEdly bElonging to thE applicant wErE attachEd on 6-6-'75. On thE samE day hE was rElEasEd on bail and at his rEquEst thE attachEd propErtiEs wErE rElEasEd on 9-7-'75. It was on 15-7-75 that O.P. No. 2 gavE an application that thE attachEd propErtiEs should not bE rElEasEd in favour of thE applicant as thEy bElongEd to thE Ashram. Such an application should not havE bEEn EntErtainEd aftEr thE Court had passEd thE ordEr rElEasing thE disputEd propErtiEs in favour of thE applicant. If O.P. No. 2 fEEls that thE disputEd propErtiEs wErE not of thE ap plicant and thEy rEally bElongEd to thE Ashram, hE can cErtainly filE a civil suit for claiming thE samE. HE cErtainly can not bE allowEd to agitatE his claim in thE Court of thE MagistratE. ThE Ma gistratE was, thErEforE absolutEly cor rEct whEn hE rEjEctEd thE application of O P. No. 2 claimg thE disput d propEr tiEs as thosE bElonging to thE Ashram. ThE lEarnEd SEssions JudgE was not at all corrEct whEn hE intErfErEd with thE ordEr of thE MagistratE and rEmandEd thE casE for furthEr invEstigation of thE claim undEr SEction 84 Cr.P.C. In thE rEsult, I allow this rEvision and sEt asidE thE impugnEd ordEr datEd 20-9-75. OrdEr datEd 27-7-73 passEd by thE MagistratE is confirmEd.