K. N. Seth, J. :- On an application of Jahan Singh and others proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code were initiated with respect to the sugarcane crop standing on the disputed plots. The learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code and also directed that the disputed sugarcane crop be attached. After attachment the crop was given in the supurdagi of one Vijai Pal. Jahan Singh and others (First party) moved the Magistrate that the crop be auctioned whereas Katar Singh and Raghubir Singh (second party) applied that the Supurdar be changed as he belonged to the group of the first party. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 11-5-1971, with the consent of the parties, that the standing sugarcane crop in dispute be given in the Supurdagi of Katar Singh and Raghubir Singh (second party) and that after harvesting the crop Katar Singh shall deposit Rs. 1,250/- in court by 10-6-1971. The second party entered into possession of the attached crop in their capacity as the Supurdars. The amount of Rs. 1,250/- was, however, not deposited as directed by the learned Magistrate and an application was made alleging that the crop in question had been badly damaged on account of rain and could not be sold for a reasonable price and hence Katar Singh was not in a position to deposit the said amount. The matter came up before, the learned Magistrate who by an order, dated 9-7-1971 extended the time for depositing the amount of Rs. 1,250/- by 16-7-1971. As the amount was not deposited even by the extended time, the learned Magistrate on 16-7-1971 passed an order for issuance of a recovery warrant in respect of the aforesaid amount.

2. In a revision filed by Katar Singh and Raghubir Singh the validity of the impugned order was challenged on the ground that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising or empowering the Magistrate to direct the recovery of the amount from the revisionists in their capacity as Supurdars of the attached sugarcane crop. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Baqridi v. Indra Vir Singh 1966 All LJ 792 = (1968 Cri LJ 1531 (2)), The argument found favour with the learned Judge who made a reference to this Court for quashing the order, dated 16-7-1971. The case has been referred to this Bench as the learned Single Judge felt that Baqridi's case (supra) required reconsideration.

3. Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Magistrate to attach the subject of the dispute pending decision in the proceeding. It further provides that if the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit. It was in exercise of this power that the Magistrate attached the sugarcane crop, which was the subject-matter of the dispute and ultimately gave it in the Supurdagi of the revisionists with a stipulation that a sum of Rs. 1,250/- being the estimated value of the crop, shall be deposited by a certain date. This order was passed with the consent of the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the revisionists entered into possession of the sugarcane crop. as Supurdars. It may be noticed that the amount which the Supurdars had to deposit was an ascertained sum and no accounting was involved. The question is whether the Magistrate had the power to recover this amount when the Supurdars committed default.

4. It was contended on behalf of the revisionists that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the Magistrate could take steps for the recovery of any amount from the Supurdars. Reliance was placed on Baqridi's case 1966 All LJ 792 = (1968 Cri LJ 1531 (2)) (supra) which in its turn had followed the view expressed in Bhagwan Sing