- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed against an order of the Magistrate dated 26- 7-1982 attaching the property in dispute passed under Sections 145/146, Cr. P. C.
(2.) IT appears that the applicants had challenged the said order in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar who dismissed the same on 30-7-1982. Normally under law a petition under Section 482, Cr P C against the revisional order would not lie in this Court and the said revisional order is challengeable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Looking at the prolonged proceedings since the year 1972 and this petition under Section 42, Cr. P. C. having been admitted by this Court on 8-9- 1982 it does not appear desirable in the interest of justice to ask the applicants to move another petition and it does appear fit and proper on the circumstances of this case to treat this petition as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so that real justice is done. This case has a chequered history. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was initiated in the year 1972 wherein a preliminary order and an order attaching the property in dispute was passed on 8th April 1973 The applicants Ikram and Sharif challenged the existence of the apprehension of breach of peace through an application. The learned Magistrate held after hearing the parties, that there was in factuo apprehension of breach of peace and there was no dispute. Consequently, the said application was allowed and the proceedings under Section 143, Cr. P. C. were dropped. The opposite party, Sheo Kumar Jalan, filed a revision against that order before the Sessions Judge who allowed the same on 25-5-1976 Aggrieved, the applicants Ikram and Sharif filed Criminal Revision No 693 of 1976 in this Court which was allowed on 5-10-1976 with the 'soecific directions that : - "the learned trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application of Ikram and others dated 26th April, 1973 in which an objection as to non-existence of apprehension of breach of peace had been taken after taking into consideration of the affidavits and other evidence of the parties which are on record. If he is of the view that there is still apprehension of breach of peace he shall proceed with the case in accordance with law and if he is of the view that no such apprehension exists he shall drop the proceedings as required under the law. "
(3.) BEFORE the Magistrate, on remand, an application was moved by opposite party, Sheo Kumar Jalan, that in order to give effect to this Court's order dated 5-10-1976 the position as it existed before he had passed the original order of dropping the proceedings, should be restored In other words it was contended that the property should be re-attached and then only the question should be decided. This application found favour with the Magistrate who passed an order dated 26-7-1988, for re-attachment of the property. Aggrieved agains Ikrani and Sharif filed yet another revision before the Sessions Judge who dismissed it summarily holding that the order of the Magistrate dated 26-7-1982 being an interlocutory order, revision where-from was not maintainable. Hence this application in this Court by Ikram and Sharif. It has been stated specifically in para 6 that the Magistrate had released the property in favour of the applicants when he had dropped the proceedings initially and thereafter actual attachment of the plots was never done because of the interim orders obtain by the applicants from time to time from different courts which he had been approaching.;