Honble YADAV, J. — Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned City Magistrate, Udaipur under Sub-sec.(l) of section 145, Cr.P.C. and order passed by him attaching the Moiyatpura Mosque under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 146, Cr.P.c Learned City Magistrate passed the impugned preliminary order under Sub-sec.(l) of Section 145,Cr.P.C. on 29.5.84 and subsequent thereafter he passed another order of attachment under Sub-sec(l) of sec. 146,Cr.P.C on the ground of Emergency attaching Moiyatpura Mosque on 30.5.84. Both the orders mentioned-above passed by the learned City Magistrate, Udaipur are under challenge before me.

(2). Before entering into the merit of the present revision petition, it would be expedient to make mention that a preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the present revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(3). Me. V.R.Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, urged before me that the instant revision petition is not maintainable in view of the mandatory provisions as contained under sub-sec.(2) of sec. 397,Cr.P.C. according to which, the power of revision conferred by sub-sec (1) shall not exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. According to Mr. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor, since the impugned orders are interlocutory orders within the meaning of Subrsec.(2) of teec.397,Cr.P.C, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable.

(3A). It is true that the word "interlocutory" has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure but from the texture of the order passed by the learned City Magistrate under Sub-Sec.(l) of sec.l45,Cr.P.C, the preliminary order to decide the claim of actual physical possession, is to be treated as interlocutory order and such interlocutory order attained finality when it is confirmed under Sub-sec.(6) of section 145,Cr.P.C. Thus it goes without saying that the order passed under Sub-sec.(l) of sec.145, Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies.

(4). Mr. V.R.Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State also invited my attention to the provisions of subs-sec (1) of Sec. 146 Cr.P.C. wherein order of attachment can be passed on three grounds; firstly, on the ground of emergency and secondly, if the Executive Magistrate after recording the evidence adduced by the respective parties, decided that none of the parties were in actual physical possession on the date when preliminary order was passed under Sub-sec(l) of Sec. 145,Cr.P.C. and also found none of the parties in possession within two months from the date of the preliminary order and thirdly, after scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the respective parties, he is not able to satisfy himself as to which of them was in actual physical possession at the relevant time, he would pass an order of attachment of the property under Sub-sec.(l) of sec.l46,Cr.P.C. It is true that other categories of the order of attachment passed under Sub- sec.(l) of sec.l46,Cr.P.C. are final orders but if attachment order is passed on the ground of emergency, it must be treated as interlocutory order and the revision does not lie.

(4A). Mr. N.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the memo of revision, wherein the last para of the grounds, it is mentioned that if no revision lies under sec.397,Cr.P.C. then the present proceedings may be converted into a proceeding under Sec.482,Cr.P.C.

(5). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar and I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, it would be expedient to convert the present proceedings under Sec.397,Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under sec.482,Cr.P.C. In my humble opinion, if both the impugned orders are allowed to stand, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court, therefore in order to keep the orders of the learned City Magistrate within its jurisdictional limit and also to prev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document