Siddhdrth Kumar Das vs Vishnu Prtsau uupta & Anr.

K. Narayan, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated ITMO1988 tendered by 111 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision Nos. 87 of 1988 and 88 of 1988, both petitioners of Dr. Siddiiarth Kumar Das v. Vishnu Prasad Gupta.

It is not disputed that the order of the civil court even though passed during injunction proceedings is to be given due respect of the courts while dealing wi''.h the property iu the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. This situation also btocd on the date of the order.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stressed before me that a ion be made to the Magistrate to release the property in his favour as the order civil court is in fas voui of the present applicant. Whether or not that order is there, the main factor remains that this court is not inclined to express any opinion on the order passed by the lower court. They have to decide it, in their own discretion. The contention of the learned counsel is that the order of the Sessionss Judge in allowing the revision is likely to be misread by the Magistrate as more prayer has been made in the application of Vishnu Prasad before the Sessions Judge Even this aspect is immaterial for the purpose of revision. To interpret the order of the superior court is the business of that court and it is not of the High Court issue guidance. Of course as and when he makes an application before the Magistrate for release of the property he will decide the said application in accordance with law.

With the above observation the revision is disposed of finally. Stay order granted earlier stands vacated.

Revision disposed of.