( 1 ) THIS Revision Application challenges the order passed by the learned J. M. F. C Borsad in Inquiry case No. 133 of 1983 pending under Section 156 (3) of the Cri. P. C. During the pendency of this inquiry the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order under Section 451 for custody and disposal of the muddamal trucks in favour of the complainant opponent No. 2 herein who is the registered owner of the muddamal trucks.

( 2 ) THE petitioners contended that the trucks were taken from their custody and possession and their possession was lawful and the opponent No. 2 the registered owner had on dissolution of the partnership lawfully transferred the possession and custody to them and therefore the learned Magistrate was not justified in directing the disposal of the property in favour of the complainant merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the trucks.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the opponent No. 2 original complainant has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this Revision Application on the ground that an order under Section 451 Cri. P. C. is not a proper order because it is an order for proper custody of the property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial and since it is not a final order it is inter-locutory order and therefore under Section 397 Cri. P. C. the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to such interoluctory order passed in inquiry.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the original complain ant has relied on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Lal v. State 1976 Cri. L. J. 358. In that case an order was passed under Section 451 refusing to release the property pending the trial and the Allahabad High Court held that it was an interlocutory order within the meaning of Sec. 397 (2) because it is passed during the pendency of the proceedings for preservation and protection of the property which is to be utilised for the final determination of the proceeding and hence no revision would lie against such an order. The learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has referred to Strouds Judicial Dictionary Fourth Edition Vol. 5 wherein various instances are given to show what an interlocutory order meant and item No. 6 was to the effect that interlocutory order was not confined to an order made between writ and final judgment but meant an order other than final judgment and applying this test meaning other than the final judgment to interlocutory order the learned Judge came to the conclusion that generally an order which is passed in a proceeding but does not decide the right or terminate any proceding could be an interlocutory order. The learned Judge further observed an order under section 451 is in every manner an interlocutory order because it is an order passed during the pendency of the proceeding for the purpose of preservation and protection of the property which is to be utilised for final determination of the proceedings and therefore the learned Judge held that Revision Application was not maintainable. This judgment does support the preliminary objection of the complainant opponent No. 2. Another judgment relied upon by opponent No. 2 is the case of Shamrao Sampatrao Khanderai v. State of Maharashtra and another 1979 Cri. L. J. 1457. In that case the question under-section 397 (2) did not arise. The question was whether the trial court having passed the order regarding interim custody could modify the same and it was argued that it was not a final order but an interlocutory order and therefore it could be modified by the trial court. But there was no question of deciding nature of interlocutory order contemplated by Section 397 (2) Cri. P. C.

( 5 ) THE third judgment relied upon on behalf of opponent No. 2 is Vasu v. T. Unnikrishnan and another 1983 Cri. L. J. 1194. The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held that an order under Section 451 is interlocutory order and therefore cannot be challenged by way