RAJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions u/S 482, Cr. P. C. raise identical question of law and facts. Hence, they have been heard together and are being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by common consent.

(2.) In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 228 of 1991 petitioners Raju and others are the registered owners of tractor No. HMT 3511 and they also own the compressor attached with this tractor. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 232 of 1991 petitioner Bhanwar Singh is the registered owner of Tractor RNE 8914. He also owns the compressor attached to this tractor. On 24-4-1991 both these tractors were found carrying explosives without any licence and hence were seized by Shri Mahendra Singh, Deputy Superientendent of Police, Shahpura. At the time of seizures Tractor HMT 3511 was found in possession of Ramlal s/o Raju and Kalu s/o Kana, while Tractor RNE 8914 was found in possession of one Mukut Singh, who is real brother of Bhanwar Singh. In connection with tractor No. HMT 3511, which did not bear any number plate a case u/S 286 I.P.C. and Ss. 5/9 Explosives Act was registered at P. S. Jahazpur, bearing C. R. No. 69 of 1991 of that Police station. In connection with tractor No RNE 8914, a similar case under similar sections was registered in the same Police Station being C. R. No. 68 of 1991.

(3.) In both the cases, the registered owners applied for release of tractors with compressors and in both the cases, by an identical order the learned Magistrate declined to release the tractor and compressor, on the grounds that the petitioners did not possess a licence to keep the explosives and that the invetigation was still going on. Aggrieved, petitioners in both the cases took the matter to Court of Session by filing separate revision petitions u/S 397, Cr. P. C. Both the revision petitions were heard by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara who dismissed both of them on the ground that in each case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was an interlocutory order and hence a revision petition was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioners in two cases have filed petitions separately u/S. 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, Learned Public Prosecutor in both the cases opposes these petitions on two grounds viz. that the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the revision petition, it being directed against an interlocutory order and that the petitioner having moved a revision petition in the court of Session, was precluded from moving a second revision petition by virtue of S. 397 (3), Cr. P. C. and for this very reason this court could not exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the impugned order under a label of S.482, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases urges that the orders in question were not 'interlocutory orders' at all and hence learned Sessions Judge fell in serious error of law in treating the orders as interlocutory orders. Regarding the second objection, he submits that powers u/S. 482, Cr. P. C. are not controlled by S. 397(2), Cr. P.C. and the Court has jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.