MOHD GULZAR Vs. CHARANJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition which should have been normally heard by one Judge, is before us on a reference made by Honble the Acting Chief Justice, in whose opinion, the view taken by one of us, (Anand J.) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 1979 titled Biaso Devi Versus Parmanand, that an order passed by court under section 516 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter to be referred to as the Code placing the property mentioned in the section on Superdanama, being interlocutory in nature, is not revisable, is not correct and requires reconsideration.

(2.) RESPONDENT Abdul Rehman, alleging that he was the owner of the Taxi, lodged a report on 3. 8. 1980 with police Station Rothibagh, Srinagar on which a case u/s 379 R P.C. ie respect of theft of taxi No. 5857 -JKT was registered with the said Police Station. Alongside he on the same day moved an application in the court, seeking custody of the taxi on Superdnama on which an exparte order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar in the following terms :

(3.) THIS order has been challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition, who also claims to be the owner of the taxi. When the petition came up for hearing before the learned Acting Chief Justice, a preliminary objection was raised in regard to its maintainability on the ground that the order sought to be revised was merely interlocutory in nature against which no revision lay. Reliance was placed upon the Single Bench decision of this court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 1979. The learned Acting Chief Justice being of the view that an order for the custody or disposal of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of an offence, passed by a court in terms of Section 516 -A, not being interlocutory in character was revisable, the view of the contrary taken in the aforesaid criminal revision petition required consideration.