PRAKASH TARACHAND SAKHRE Vs. ASHOK PUNDLOIKRAO WAJGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has approached this Court under section 482 Cri. P. C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-7-1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 95 as also for quashing order dated 23-6-1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur in Misc. Criminal Applications Nos. 121 of 95 and 130 of 95. By order dated 23-6-1995 the application filed by the applicant for handing over the vehicle to him on supratnama was rejected, but the application filed by respondent No. 1 for the same purpose was allowed. The trial Court, therefore, ordered that the vehicle in question be delivered to the respondent No. 1 on execution of bond of Rs. 2 lacs with a direction to produce the truck in the Court as and when required. This order was challenged by the applicant in Revision before the Sessions Court in which respondent No. 2 raised objection that revision was not maintainable which objection was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur and the revision was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) THE applicant is the registered owner of Truck No. MHV-2548. His case is that he took friendly hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from respondent No. 1 Ashok and for that he had signed a blank stamp paper in favour of respondent No. 1. The said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was returned, but the blank stamp paper was not returned. However, respondent No. 1 had given assurance that he would tear the same. On 9-6-95 the respondent No. 1 lodged complaint with police that applicant had committed theft of the truck MHV-2548 which he had purchased from the applicant. Police seized the truck. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he had purchased the truck from applicant for Rs. 90,000/- on 28-12-1994 and that the truck was in his possession. He relied on documents of transfer of truck executed by the applicant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that when the impugned order was passed by the Magistrate, neither inquiry nor trial had started nor property was produced before the Court. He, therefore, held that the order was passed under section 457 Cri. P. C. which is not revisable.

(3.) HEARD learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A. P. P. for the respondent No. 2. Learned Advocate for applicant urged before me that revision against the order of Magistrate was maintainable and the Additional Sessions Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the revision was not maintainable. Learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon number of authorities in this respect including the judgments of the Supreme Court in (V. C. Shukla v. State), A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 962; (Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others), A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 2185 and (Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra), A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 47. Besides this, reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in (Joshy v. The State), 1986 Cri. L. J. 263, wherein it is held that revision against the order passed under section 457 Cri. P. C. is maintainable. However, order passed under section 451 Cri. P. C. being an interlocutory order, is not revisable on account of bar under section 397 (2) Cri. P. C. He also relied upon (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. State and another), 1981 Cri. L. J. 1529 wherein it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that an order passed under section 457 Cri. P. C. is not an interlocutory order as it substantially affects the rights of the parties and as such revision is maintainable. He next placed reliance on (Indrakumar Faredun Irani and etc. v. State of Maharashtra and others), 1989 (1) Bom. C. R. 601 : 1989 Cri. L. J. 1439 wherein the question of maintainability of revision was not directly in issue, but passing reference was made in paragraph 10 of the judgment in respect of custody of property, holding that the parties cannot directly approach the High Court and invoke the powers of the High Court under section 482 Cri. P. C. , but it is only when the Magistrate concerned does not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or exercises it with material irregularity and the Sessions Judge in the revisional powers under section 399 Cri. P. C. fails to correct the error that the party can approach the High Court under inherent powers under section 482 Cri. P. C. Learned Advocate for the applicant has also relied upon (Praveen Kumar v. State and another), 1990 (1) Crimes 670 wherein it is held that the order passed under section 451 Cri. P. C. is final between the parties and revision is maintainable. Referring to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in (Virendrakumar J. Handa v. Dilawarkhan Alij Khan and others), 1991 (3) Bom. C. R. 218 : 1991 Mh. L. J. 1371, wherein it is held that the order under section 457 Cri. P. C. regarding disposal of property seized passed after filing of charge-sheet, but before property was actually produced before the Court, is interlocutory one subject to final orders to be passed after conclusion of trial and that such order is not appealable under any express provision and being interlocutory order, the same is not revisable in view of bar under section 397 (2) Cri. P. C. , it was pointed out by learned Counsel for applicant that in the instant case, neither charge-sheet was filed nor the property was produced before the Court and as such, the ruling of the learned Single Judge would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Finally, learned Advocate for applicant relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in (Ram Lachhan and others v. State of U. P. and another), 2000 Cri. L. J. 2770 which, in my opinion, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.