HARIKRUSHNA PUROHIT Vs. SATYABADI PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Berhampur on 25-7-1989 directing refund of the bid amount of Rs. 4750/- for auction of the disputed land for the year 1984-85 in favour of the opposite party.

(2.) A few facts may be stated in brief. Opposite party Satyabadi Purohit initiated a proceeding under S.145, Cr. P.C. (M.C. No. 462 of 1984) in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Berhampur, in respect of the disputed land belonging to deity Shri Sapneswar Mohaprabhu claiming as a trustee. After expiry of two years he ceased to be the trustee, but did not voluntarily hand over charge of the temple and its properties to petitioner Harikrushna Purohit who was appointed as the trustee of the deity. He, therefore, moved the Commissioner of Endowments and obtained delivery of possession of the temple and the properties on 5-1-1987 and 16-2-1987 respectively from opposite party Satyabadi Purohit. In view of the changed position with regard to appointment of trustee, the proceeding under S.145, Cr. P.C. was dropped on 18-5-1987. In respect of the standing crops of the disputed land the Revenue Inspector, Patapur was appointed as the custodian. He deposited the bid amount of Rs. 4750/- in the Court of the Executive Magistrate on 6-9-1987. Petitioner Harikrushna Purohit being the trustee of the deity filed an application before the Executive Magistrate for refund of the deposited amount which was allowed by order dated 14-9-1987. Opposite party Satyabadi Purohit filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, who by his order dated 3-5-1988 set aside the order dated 14-9-1987 and remanded the case to the Court of the Executive Magistrate with directions. After remand, the Executive Magistrate on 25-7-1989 passed the impugned order directing that the amount of Rs. 4750/- be refunded to opposite party Satyabadi Purohit on the ground that on the date of the preliminary order he was in possession of the disputed land on behalf of the deity and continued in such possession till 16-2-1987. It is this order which has been challenged in the criminal revision.

(3.) Mrs. R. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party raised preliminary objection to the extent that the impugned order was passed under the provisions of S.452(1) and (2). Under S.454, Cr. P.C. an appeal will lie to the Court of Session and not a criminal revision and so the criminal revision in this Court is not maintainable.