ORDER

Heard Mr.Poddar Suresh Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 assisted by Mr. Waliur Rahman.

2. Petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra in Case No. 826M of 2017 passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. and the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 90 of 2020 whereby the Criminal Revision has been held not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owned and possessed the land of Mauza-Nonepur, Tauzi No. 973, Khata no. 65, Khesra no. 1312, area 7 bighas, 06 Kattha, 14 dhurs of land. He is claiming being the descendant of recorded tenant Bhikhari, son of Birju.

4. Learned counsel submits that in this case the opposite party no. 2 filed a petition for drawing a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. over which a police report was called for from Teghra Police Station and on the basis of the said police report a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was drawn against both the parties which has later on converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after hearing the parties.

5. The opposite party no. 2 filed a petition for attachment of the disputed land and appointment of receiver which was considered by the learned S.D.M. and vide order dated 25.06.2019 the learned S.D.M. has been pleased to pass an order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. whereby he has attached the entire 7 bighas, 06 Kattha, 14 dhurs of land of Khesra No. 1312 and appointed the Circle Officer, Teghra as receiver.

6. Learned counsel submits that the S.D.M. passed the order dated 25.06.2019 without looking into the report of the concerned Police Station which was available on the record and as per the said report the police had got secret information in course of enquiry that the second party was cultivating for last 5-6 years.

7. Learned counsel further submits that even though the S.D.M. is competent to pass an order of attachment but the mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. is that such power of attachment may be exercised only in case of emergency and after recording one of the circumstances stated under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C.

8. It is his further submission that being aggrieved by the order of S.D.M. when he moved in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, the same has been rejected as not maintainable. It is his submission that with the revision application there was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay but the learned Sessions Judge did not look into that application and by recording an observation that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order hence, the case is not admitted for hearing, dismissed the revision application at the admission stage itself.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the revision application by holding that the same is not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has observed that revision is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of this Court has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bechan Mahto and others Vs. The State of Bihar and another reported in 1988 PLJR 384. The two other judgments on the point are (Jai Prakash Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and others) 2003 (4) Criminal Law Journal 4278 and (Haripoda Mardi and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others) 2004(1) Criminal Law Journal 345.

10. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards paragraphs ‘9’, ‘10’, ‘11’ and ‘12’ of the judgment in Bechan Mahto (supra). The Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the attachment