An order passed under Section 451, Cr.P.C. is not interlocutory in nature and is subject to revision if it has adjudicated the rights of the rival parties.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Though in the considered opinion of this Court, the present criminal revision has become infructuous on account of the main F.I.R. out of which the present revision for the superdari of the goods the subject matter of the F.I.R. has arisen, yet in order to obviate any chance of remand by the higher Court, I would like to dispose of the revision petition on merits by discussing the facts and the submissions which have been raised before this Court by the respective counsel for the parties.

2. Shri Babu Lal Jain, who was the complainant of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad, has filed the present criminal revision and it has been directed against the order dated 20th August, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who accepted the revision petition filed by M/s Exquisite Enterprises, and set aside the order dated 22nd July, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, who earlier ordered for the release of the goods in question in favour of the complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain on his furnishing superdarinama in the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O. concerned, with the condition that he shall keep intact the case property and shall not change its nature or dispose of it till the final decision of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, ordered that the goods in the shape of 48000 skins be released to M/s Exquisite Enterprises through Shri H.S. Bali, its partner, on furnishing superdari in the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court; undertaking to keep the goods intact till the disposal of the case by using proper preservative and storing them at a proper place, and to produce them in the Court at the time of the trial as and when so directed by the Court during the pendency of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case can be described as follows :-

Shri Babu Lal Jain, styling himself as Managing Director of Tonk Tanneries (P) Ltd. (Rajasthan), lodged F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 in Police Station Central, Faridabad, against Shri G.S. Bali, his son Shri H.S. Bali and one Mr. S.S. Sethi, alleging that these three persons had hatched a conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy 48,000 and odd raw skins, belonging to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd., carrying on business at Tonk (Rajasthan), had been allegedly misappropriated by Shri G.S. Bali in connivance with his son Mr. H.S. Bali and one Mr. Sethi, and that Mr. G.S. Bali in the capacity of Director of the said Company had taken away the skins for finishing to the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, of which he and his son are the partners and Dr. (Lt. Col.) G.S. Bali had also taken the chemicals etc. belonging to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. (for short the company) and had removed the account books of the Company in order to fabricate the evidence prejudicial to the interests of the Company and its shareholders. Before I proceed further, it may be mentioned that this F.I.R. has been quashed by this Court vide order of the even date, mainly on the ground that firstly it is not established on the record that the skins in dispute were actually the property of M/s Tonk Tanneries (P) Ltd. and that the subject-matter of this F.I.R. was also the subject-matter of F.I.R. No. 122 dated 31st October, 1994 registered at Police Station Sadar, Tonk (Rajasthan), and that there was a crude attempt on the part of Shri Babu Lal Jain when he lodged the second F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 in connivance with the Haryana Police and realising that the Police of Rajasthan had come to the conclusion that no criminal offence was made out against Dr. G.S. Bali and the other accused of the said F.I.R. It has also been held in the separate judgment that ingredients of Section 406, I.P.C., are not prima facie attracted and at the mos