9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Magistrate becomes functus officio after dropping proceedings under Section 145(5), Cr.P.C., and lacks jurisdiction to pass any order relating to the disposal of the property. 2. Whether a person who has unsuccessfully fought a criminal revision case before the Sessions Judge can maintain a revision petition before the High Court under Sections 397 and 399, Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate After Dropping Proceedings: The primary issue is whether the Magistrate becomes functus officio upon dropping proceedings under Section 145(5), Cr.P.C., and thus lacks the jurisdiction to pass any further orders regarding the disposal of attached property. The court reviewed various judicial opinions and precedents on this matter. The preponderance of judicial authority supports the view that the Magistrate does not become functus officio after dropping proceedings under Section 145(5), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate retains the jurisdiction to make incidental or consequential orders to wind up the proceedings and restore possession of the attached property to the party from whom it was taken. The court cited multiple cases to support this view: - Smt. Kaniz Fatima Bibi v. State of Uttar Pradesh: The Magistrate has inherent powers to restore the status quo ante and pass incidental orders even after dropping proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. - Ram Lal v. Mangu: The Magistrate can make incidental orders to restore possession to the party from whom it was taken at the time of attachment, provided there is clear material on record. - State v. Sheoratan Singh: The Magistrate should restore the status quo ante when jurisdiction under Section 145 is found wanting, and if it is not possible, retain the property in court custody and direct parties to seek remedies in a civil court. - Chowdaiah v. Venkataramanappa: The Magistrate has inherent powers to pass orders regarding the delivery of property under attachment after cancellation of proceedings under Section 145(5), Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to make incidental orders by way of winding up the proceedings and restore possession of the attached property to the party from whom it was taken. However, the Magistrate cannot conduct an enquiry to determine who was in possession at the time of the preliminary order. 2. Maintainability of Revision Petition Before High Court: The second issue is whether a person who has unsuccessfully fought a criminal revision case before the Sessions Judge can maintain a revision petition before the High Court under Sections 397 and 399, Cr.P.C. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. - Section 397(3), Cr.P.C.: If an application has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. - Section 399(3), Cr.P.C.: The decision of the Sessions Judge in relation to such person shall be final, and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. The court clarified that the bar under Section 397(3) applies only to the same person who has already approached the Sessions Judge. It does not apply to other parties or persons who have not moved the Sessions Judge. The court cited relevant case law to support this interpretation: - Joseph Abraham v. Thankamma: The finality of the Sessions Judge's order is confined to the person at whose instance the petition is moved. - Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy: The bar under Section 397(3) is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or the Sessions Court seeking a remedy. Therefore, the revision application by the A party respondent, who unsuccessfully contested the revision application filed by the B party respondents, is maintainable. Conclusion: Based on the analysis, the court held that the Magistrate does not become functus officio after dropping proceedings under Section 145(5), Cr.P.C., and retains jurisdiction to make incidental orders to restore possession of the attached property. Additionally, the revision petition by the A party respondent before the High Court is maintainable despite the earlier revision before the Sessions Judge by the B party respondents. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is set aside, and the order of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, is restored. Revision Allowed.
|
