JEET RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment dated 25. 5. 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana (Bharatpur) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 451, 457 Cr. P. C. for the custody of tractor bearing registration No. RJ-05-2r-1213, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vair (Bharatpur) and the application filed by the respondent No. 2 - Ram Roop, for the custody of said tractor, was allowed. Against the order dated 29. 4. 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vair, revision petition was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned judgment.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that the application for interim custody of the tractor in dispute filed by the petitioners under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P. C. , was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vair and the application of respondent No. 2 Ram Roop, for interim custody of the said tractor, was allowed, against which petitioners preferred revision petition under Section 396 Cr. P. C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana, which was also dismissed, against which this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. Keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajan Kumar Machananda's case (supra), present petition is virtually a second revision petition under the heading of Section 482 Cr. P. C. Therefore, by virtue of the specific bar provided under Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. this second revision petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also it is admitted case of the petitioners that a civil suit is pending before the competent civil court in regard to the tractor in dispute. So far merits of the case is concerned, learned Judicial Magistrate, Vair as well as learned revisional Court were prima facie of the view that he sale agreement of the tractor in dispute is not genuine and as such the petitioners were not in lawful possession over the same.