BRIJ LAL CHAKOO Vs. ABDUL AHAD NISHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions petitions raise a common question of law as regards the interpretation of Section 435 (4-a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Act No. XXXVII of 1978.

(2.) IN criminal revision No. 28 of 1979, Brij Lai Chakoo versus Abdul Ahad Nishati, the Court of the City Magistrate Srinagar, has initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in respect of one single storeyed house with attic and land measuring six kanals appurtenant thereto situate at Gupt Ganga, Nishat Srinagar, and after drawing up the preliminary order as envisaged by Section 145 (1) of Cr. P. C. has also proceeded to attach the subject matter of the dispute under proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. In the revision before us the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the magistrate both under Section 145 (1) and proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. In the other two cases namely revisions Nos. 34 and 41 of 1979, viz. Raheman Malik and Ors. v. Ghulam Nabi Mir and Ahad Sheikh v. Mehda Sheikh and Ors. the Courts of the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate Ganderbal and the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate Sonawari, respectively have attached the properties under proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C.

(3.) WHEN the aforesaid revision petitions came to be heard by one of us, a preliminary Objection was raised that the revisions were not competent in view of the provisions of Section 435 (4-a) which barred the jurisdiction of revisional courts to entertain a revision against an interlocutory order. It was debated that the order made under Section 145 (1) and also under proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. are mere interlocutory orders and not final orders, and therefore, no revision was maintainable under Section 435 (4-a) Cr. P. C. In view of the importance of the question raised, which was likely to arise in a number of cases, the cases were referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement Accordingly these cases have been placed before us.