ABDUL WAHAB Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an order dated 13-9-1977, passed by Shri Ambujakshya Tripathi, Sessions Judge, Purnea, by which he has set aside the earlier order dated 18-8-1977, passed by Sri Pradhan Uma Kant, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. To appreciate the paints involved, it is necessary to put, in brief the facts of the case, which are as follows :-

(2.) On 27-2-1977, the petitioner lodged an informition at Kasba police station against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and some others unknown alleging therein that in the evening at about 7.30 p. m. the opposite party along with 14 persons variously armed came to the rented house of the petitioner entered into the two rooms which were in occupation of the petitioners and took forcible possession thereof and also removed articles worth Rs. 7,000/-. The police drew up an F. I. R., and after instituting a case, took up investigation and came to the place of occurrence locked up the two rooms forcibly occupied by the members of the opposite party and took them into custody, but later they were released on bail. It is stated that the police, thereafter, on approach by the members of the opposite party unlocked the rooms and put them in possession thereof. The petitioner-informant challenged the action of the police and filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, with a prayer for making over the possess/on of the two rooms to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Pradhan Uma Kant gave notice to the accused-opposite party, called for a report from the police, and after hearing the parties struck down the earlier action of the police and by his order dated 18-8-77 directed that the possession of the two rooms be restored to the informant-petitioner. The concluding portion of the order runs as follows :-

(3.) Shri Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised two questions for consideration by this Court. Firstly, that the earlier order dated 18-8-1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was an interlocutory one and revision against the same was not competent and maintainable before the Sessions Judge ; secondly, the learned Sessions Judge committed error in telling that the provision laid down under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate of dealing with immoveable property. Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, Advocate, at the Bar contends that the word 'property' in section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes both moveable and immoveable, and its meaning cannot be confined to only moveable property.