An order passed under Section 451/457 CrPC is not an interlocutory order and is, therefore, revisable by the Sessions Judge under Section 397 CrPC.

M.A.A. Khan, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the present case Narain, informant lodged a FIR with Police Station Govindgarh alleging therein that the petitioner Mahadev alongwith his sons dishonestly took away a she buffalo from his possession. On such report a case of an offence under Section 379 IPC was registered at the Police Station and after investigation Mahadev petitioner was chargesheeted. It is reported that by now a charge for the offence under Section 379 IPC has already been framed against the petitioner and he is facing trial for that.

3. In the course of investigation of the case the police seized the stolen property, that is the she buffalo from the possession of the petitioner. Both the parties moved their application under Section 447 CrPC before the learned Magistrate. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 6-7-95, directed that the ‘sapurdgi’ of the she-buffalo, during the pendency of the proceedings be entrusted to the petitioner on his, executing a Supurdgi Nama in the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Narain non-petitioner challenged this order of the Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur Distt. Jaipur who by his impugned order dated 5-6-96, reversed the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that the supurdgi of the she-buffalo be entrusted to Narain, the non-petitioner. Aggrieved against such order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 5-6-96 Mahadev accused petitioner has approached this Court under Section 397 CrPC.

4. Mr. Taquiddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset urged that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 457 CrPC being an intelocutory order in nature, was not revisable by the learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of his powers under Section 397 CrPC in view of the bar created by Sub-section (2) of the said provision. In support of such contention Mr. Taquiddin placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Liyakat Hussain vs. Rajendra, (1992) 2 Crimes 549 (Sic). Mr.

K. C. Sharma, the learned counsel for Narain complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugend order and further submitted that since the order passed under Section 457/451 CrPC was to remain in force during the pendency of the trial and thus finality was attached to it for that limited purpose and period, the same was not an interlocutory order so as to bar the jurisdiction of the revisional Court under Section 397 CrPC In support of such contention the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raju vs. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 Rajasthan LR 447 : (1992 CriLJ 723). It was further submitted that since the petitioner did not raise the plea of lack of jurisdiction to the Sessions Judge before him, he should not be allowed to question the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge at this stage.

5. I have gone through the impugned orders as passed by the inferior Courts and also the law as cited before me by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Liyakat Hussain (supra) the Bombay High Court has taken the view that an order passed under Section 451/457 CrPC releasing the property on the supurdginama of a person was interlocutory and not a final order and was, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the higher Courts. In support of such view the learned Judge has relied upon certain decisions passed by that Court and has also referred to certain decisions of the Apex Court.

6. In the case of Raju, (1992 CriLJ 723) (supra), this Court with reference to certain earlier decisions and also the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866: 1960 CriLJ 1239 : Amar Nath vs. State of Harayana, AIR 1977 SC 2185:(1977 CriLJ 1891), Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47: 1978 CriLJ 165 and V.C. Shukla vs. State through CBI, AIR 19