Khursheed Khan vs Jamir Ahmad and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—This revision u/s 397/401, IPC is directed against the order dated 28.5.1998 passed by Sri D.D. Sharma, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1996.

I have heard Sri M.S Haq for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and Sri A.D. Prabhakar for the opposite parties.

The facts of the case are that proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure were started on the application of applicant Khursheed Khan. Preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was passed. Property was attached u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and it was given in the Supurdigi of Station Officer. PS Najibabad who was appointed receiver of the property. Ultimately proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped by the order of Addl. Sessions Judge. Thereafter, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 moved an application u/s 452, Code of Criminal Procedure that the possession of the property given in the supurdigi of receiver may be delivered to them. That application was rejected by S.D.M. by order dated 22.6.1996. Against that order, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed criminal revision No. 34 of 1996 which was allowed by the impugned order and the order of learned S.D.M. has been quashed. He further ordered that property be restored to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as it was attached from their possession. Aggrieved by that order, present revision has been preferred.

There is report of the police before attachment of property that it is in possession of the opposite parties and land was being irrigated by tube-well of opposite parties. Prima facie, evidence adduced by the opposite parties is that they were in possession of property and it was attached from their possession. In the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure the possession of any party could not be determined and proceedings were dropped under the orders passed by revisional Court. Under the circumstances of the case, prima Jacie it appears that property was in the possession of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and was attached from their possession. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal. No different order can be passed in this revision. If the applicant is aggrieved by that order he can get his right decided by the Civil Court.

The revision is dismissed.