SHARMA, J. —This is an application in revision filed by the State of Rajasthan against an order of the Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Department cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 25th September,1975, by which ornaments, cash and silver utensils seized upon search from the house of Ramnarayan Upadhyaya non-petitioners, were ordered to be delivered to a Superddar of the status of a person paying income-tax on an yearly income of Rs. 40,000/-, provided such Superddar gave an under taking that he would keep ornaments, cash and utensils intact and would not in any manner dispose them of.

2. The short facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be narrated as follows:—

3. A complaint was received against Ramnarayan Upadhayaya, Enforcement Officer, Bikaner, that he, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abusing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself valuable things or pecuniary advantage and that he was in possession of pecuniary sources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which he could not satisfactorily account. A preliminary inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Bikaner, into the allegations made in this complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police found them prima-facie true. Hence a criminal case (F.I.R. No. 39 of 1975) under S. 161, I.P.C. read with S. 5(1), (d) and (e) and sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was registered against Ramnarayan Upadhyaya, non-petitioner on 28th July, 1975. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Bikaner, took-up usual investigation into the case. In the course of investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.D. raided the house of the non-petitioner at Bikaner and conducted a search therein. As a result of the search, ornaments of gold and silver, cash, silver utensils etc. were recovered therefrom and seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.D. Bikaner, as these properties were found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the non-petitioner and as the non-petitioner could not satisfactorily account for their possession. After seizure of the articles Ramnarayan Upadhyaya Presented an application on 5th September, 1975, in the court of the Special Judge for A.C.D. cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur for obtaining an order that the properties be delivered to him on such conditions as the Special Judge might thought fit. Notice of this application was given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, who hotly contested it. The Special Judge after hearing arguments came to a conclusion that the properties seized from the house of the non-petitioner could not be allowed to remain in possession of the police for an indefinite period and that the mere fact that investigation in a case under sec. 5(1)(d) and (e) and sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5 of the Act, is pending against the non-petitioner does not operate as a bar to the passing of an order respecting the disposal of the property or the delivery thereof to the persons entitled to its possession or respecting the custody and production thereof. Consequently the Special Judge passed the impugned order as stated above. Aggrieved by this order, the State has come-up in revision to this Court.

4. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by Mr. S.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the State and Dr. M.M. Tiwari for Ram Narayan, non-petitioner. Dr. M. M. Tiwari, has raised a preliminary objection that the powers of revision conferred by sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 397 of the new Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised in revision in relation to an interlocutory order passed in an inquiry, trial or other proceeding and that in view of this significant change brought about by sub-sec. (2) of S. 397, the High Court and the Court of Sessions have no powers to entertain applications in revision against orders of interlocutory nature. It was further argued by Dr. M.M. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document