V.S. DAVE, J.— This is a reference made to us by Honble Chief Justice for answering the question referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge, Honble Sharma J. The question referred to is whether a composite order of attachment of disputed property under section 146 Cr.P.C can be passed by the Magistrate while passing the preliminary order under section 145 (1) Cr.P.C?

2. The aforesaid question arose in a revision petition filed against the order passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby he had partly quashed the order of Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dated December 20, 1982 so far as the attachment of the property and appointment of receiver was made. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had passed one composite order which was in two parts. In first part he had drawn a preliminary order as required by sec. 145(1) Cr.P.C. and in the second part he had passed an order of attachment and appointed a receiver to manage the property. The learned Sessions Judge while reversing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the extent of it being one under section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. placed reliance on a decision of this court reported in Kishan Bihari Birla vs. Prem Kumari Bhati (1). A revision was filed before this Court which come up for hearing before Honble Sharma J. His attention was drawn to the decision of Honble Byas J. in Ram Prasad V. State of Rajasthan (2) and of Honble Kasliwal J. in Girwar Dan Ram Prasad (3) Honble Sharma J. had, already, in an earlier case cited above taken the view that a composite order under section 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. is illegal and it was this judgment which was relied on by Sessions Judge. Since Honble Byas J. had taken the view that simultaneous order of attachment can be passed and there is no illegality in it so as to call for interference in revision petition and Honble Kasliwal J. had taken the view that a composite order may validly be passed though it is appropriate if the Magistrate passes two separate orders and also that order under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. must precede order under Sec. 146 (1) Cr.P.C. and further it must be clearly borne out from composite order that Magistrate was satisfied separately with regard to existence of conditions for drawing orders under two sections, therefore, Honble Sharma J. in the instant case made a reference to the Larger Bench. This is how this reference has come up before us for answering.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, while supporting the view taken by Honble Byas J. and Honble Kasliwal J. submitted that there is no bar in passing simultaneous or composite order and the only requirement of law is that Magistrate should apply his mind twice and it should be apparent from the order. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in Syed Ahmed V. Rais Ahmed (4). He also placed reliance on Theophil Xess Vs. Chuyan Ekka, (5) a judgment from the Orissa High Court. He also placed reliance on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mathuralal V. Bhanwarlal (6).

4. On the strength of the aforesaid observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court he submitted that there being no substantial change even after separately enacting section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. the position of law remains the same and there is no legal bar if the Magistrate passes a composite order.

5. Shri M. M. Ranjan appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner submitted that the view taken by Honble Sharma J. is a correct view and further that the words at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.P.C will become redundant in case any other interpretation is given. He placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Mahendra Tiwari V. Mt. Lal Pari Devi (7). He also relied on Kottarathil Mavunni Vs. State of Kerala (8) wherein Kerala High Court relied on one of its own earlier judgment in Lilly Franklin V. Wilson (9) delivered by Janki Amma J It is thus submitted by Sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document