UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. - (1.) IN the aforesaid revisions, either of the orders passed by the different Executive Magistrates under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') or the orders passed by the Sessions & Judges/Additional Sessions Judges in revisional jurisdiction in matters relating to such orders passed under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code are under challenge. In all the cases Executive Magistrates had passed orders under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code, as aforesaid and the aggrieved parties have either challenged those orders in some of these revisions before this Court or some of them had challenged some orders before the Sessions' Court.
(2.) THE revisionists here in this Court are aggrieved against the orders of attachment passed under Section 146 (1) of the Code and some of them have also expressed their grievances against the preliminary order passed under Section 145 (1) of the Code. The parties Counsel appearing from the other side have challenged the maintainability of such revisions in the light of the bar created by Section 397 (2) of the Code and have strenuously argued that such revisions are not maintainable as the orders challenged are of interlocutory nature. Citations of different case law have been given by the learned Counsel for the parties in support of their contentions. The case law of Division Bench of this Court in Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 (18) A.C.C. 316, has been relied upon in support of argument that the bar of Section 397 (2) of the Code would operate in such cases, Learned Counsel has further supported this point with the pronouncements of this Court and other High Courts given by the learned Single Judges in Jai Prakash Singh and Anr. v. Radhey Shyam Singh and Ors., 1987 (24) A.C.C. 464, Jai Prakash v. Rajeshwar Prasad and Ors., 2002(2) JIC 45 (Uttaranchal): 2002 All JIC 621, Kalloo and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1996(1) JIC 594 (All) : 1997 All JIC 772, Atiq Khan v. Ashraf Khan and Anr., 1993 JIC 520 (All), Gurdial Singh Mann v. Dharampal Singh Mann and Anr., 1990 Cri. L.J. 389 (P. and H.), Jagannath Singh Chauhan and Anr. v. Smt. Shakuntala Singh, 1990 AWC 119 and Shishu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1982 Cri. L.J. 124 (P. and H.). From the other side in support of their contentions that the bar of Section 397 (2) would not operate, the learned Counsel have placed reliance upon the following case law: (1) Gulab Chand v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2004(1) JC 376 (All) : 2004 (48) ACC 579, (2) Laxmi Kant Dubey v. Smt. Jamuni and Ors., 2000(1) JIC 78 (All) : 1999 (39) ACC 649, (3) Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1985 AWC 128(SC), (4) Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan and Anr., 2001 (1) JIC 381 (SC), (5) Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh and Ors., 2002(1) JIC 944 (SC) : 2002 (2) ACrR 1457 (SC), (6) Ram Lachhan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2000(2) JIC 859 (All) : 2000 (1) A.Cr.R. 514, (7) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (15) A.C.C. 183(SC).
(3.) WITH the help of aforesaid cases, the decision has to be taken in the present revisions as to whether these petitions are barred under Section 397 (2) of the Code or they are maintainable either as criminal revisions or petitions under Section 482 of the Code. This point which arises for determination may be put in the following words: Whether the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code are interlocutory orders simplicitor and no revision petition under Section 397 or 403 of the Code or petition under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable against the same. ;