Jangjeet vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinod Prasad, J.—Learned Counsel for the revisionist has supplied certified copy of the order dated 3172006, which is taken on record.

Office of this Court is directed to score out the defective number and allot a regular number to this revision.

Sri Raj Kumar Khanna has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party No. 2; the same is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Raj Kumar Khanna learned Counsel for the opposite party and the learned A.G.A.

The Magistrate has passed an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. on 3172006 in relation to Crime No.193 of 2005 (Case No. 146/11/05), under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. Police Station Chata, District Mathura.

By the said order the Magistrate has released the Harrow (vehicle use for cutting of crops) in the custody of the present revisionist on the condition that he will furnish a personal bond of Rs. 15000/ and a surety in the like amount. The further direction by the Magistrate was that the revisionist would give an undertaking that he will keep the said Harrow in his custody till the disposal of case in a safe mode and he will not alter or change the said Harrow in any manner nor he will transfer it to anybody. Another condition was that as and when Court will require revisionist will produce the said Harrow before it. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 2 Hari Mohan filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Mathura, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2006, Hari Mohan v. State of U.P. and Ors. The aforesaid revision was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7 Mathura, who vide his impugned order dated 10112006 allowed the revision field by respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate.

Hence, this revision field by other side challenging lower revisional Court''s order.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable. Lower Revisional Court transgressed its jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. He further contended that while passing the impugned order the Lower Revisional Court did not look into the order passed by the trial Court and made certain observations, which is against the factual aspect of the matter being contrary to the order passed by the Magistrate. He invited the attention on the last portion of the impugned judgment.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand contended that the said order has been passed justifiably by the Lower Revisional Court as the Magistrate committed a patent error in handing over the Harrow to the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. also supported the contention of the Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

I have considered the submission by both the sides. Order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order. It is by way of an interim measure. No revision against such an order is maintainable in view of under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing is decided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. Section 451 Cr.P.C. is only a enabling provision for the purposes of keeping in safe custody articles, which is subject mater of dispute between the two litigating parties. The very phraseology which has been used by the legislature in engrafting Section 451 Cr.P.C. itself shows that an order under that section is an interlocutory order. The Sessions Judge committed a manifest error of law in entertaining the revision against such an order passed by the Magistrate/trial Court handing over the Harrow to the revisionist as an interim measure. No revision was maintainable before it against the said order. Consequently the impugned order dated 10112006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura in criminal revision No. 345 of 2006, Hari Mohan v. State of U.P. is against the jurisdiction vested in the Sessions Judge and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside.

Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 10112006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura in Criminal revision No. 345 of 2006, Hari Mohan v. State of U.P., is hereby set aside and the orderdated 3172006 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in case No. 146 of 2005 relating at Crime No. 193 of 2005 is hereby restored.

This order will not in any way prejudice the right of the respondent No. 2 whatever he has after the conclusion of the trial under Section 452 Cr.P.C.

Revision allowed.