IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1684 of 2009

======================================================

Chandeshwar Pandey son of Late Ram Krishna Pandey, resident of village-

Babhanganwa, P.S. Badahra, District Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Radheshyam Pandey son of late Muni Pandey

3. Anandji Pandey, son of Radheshyam Pandey

2 and 3 resident of village- Babhanganwa, P.S. Badahra, District

Bhojpur.

.... .... Opp. Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.N.Chaubey, Sr. Adv., with

Mr. A.N.Chaubey, and

Mr. Gopal Swaroop Dubey, Advocates.

For the State : Mr. N.N.Tiwary, APP

For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Krishna Bihari, with

Mr. Rajendra Kr. Dubey, Advocates.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

ORAL ORDER

6

18-12-2012

Heard.

By the impugned revisional order dated 15.04.2009

passed in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2009 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Ara, the order dated 24.11.2008 passed in Case

No. 199 of 2007 by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ara

in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. attaching the lands in

dispute in purported exercise of powers under Section 146(1) Cr.

P. C. has been set aside and the learned original court has been

directed to proceed with the trial/ enquiry under Section 145 Cr. P.

C. By the aforesaid revisional order it has further been observed

that if necessary and if there is imminent danger of breach of

peace or bloodshed, he may pass a fresh order under Section

146(1) Cr. P. C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1684 of 2009 (6) dt.18-12-2012

2/3

impugned order only on the ground that original order dated

24.11.2008 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate was

interlocutory in nature. Therefore, according to him, learned

Sessions Judge should not have entertained the aforesaid revision

application and further subjective satisfaction of the learned

Executive Magistrate about existence of situation of emergency

should not have been interfered with in exercise of his revisional

jurisdiction.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in

response to the notice the petitioner appeared before the learned

revisional court below, but he did not raise the question of

jurisdiction, rather tried to defend the order of the learned

Executive Magistrate on merit. Admittedly, he participated in the

proceeding before the learned revisional court below, waited for a

favourable order and once the order has gone against the

petitioner, he has chosen to file the present revision application

assailing the correctness and propriety of the said order. In the

aforesaid factual background, the petitioner is no longer entitled to

challenge the impugned revisional order on the ground of

jurisdiction, as he has already waived his such right.

After having heard the parties and for the reasons

recorded above, as also in view of the observations of the learned

revisional court below, giving liberty to the learned Executive

Magistrate to pass a fresh order under Section 146(1) Cr. P. C., if

need be, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned

revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ara in

Criminal Revisional No.6 of 2009.

In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1684 of 2009 (6) dt.18-12-2012

3/3

However, the learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar,

Bhojpur, Ara, in seisin of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.

C., is hereby directed to expedite the hearing of the case and

should make all the endeavours to conclude the proceeding at an

early date preferably within