S.K. Kaul, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated thus : proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were taken by the Magistrate with respect to plot no. 264, situate in village Hallumajra, P. S. Fatehpur. This plot was found to be sowed with crop. The Magistrate ordered attachment of the crop. The crop was given to the supurdagi of the present revisionists. Both parties filed their respective written statements alleging their possession. The crop was estimated by the police to be of Rs. 1725/ -. Later on, the supurda -gars were allowed to harvest the crop and deposit the amount. On the next date, the supurdagars were restrained from harvesting the crop till further orders. The supurdagars then requested for expenses. Ultimately, they moved an application on 20th April, 1972, that the opposite parties and others had committed theft of the crop in between the night of 17th and 18th April, 1972. A report under Section 379 IPC was also lodged by them. A report from the police was called for. The police, however, did not find any case of theft having been made out and submitted a final report. The Magistrate then called upon the supurdagars to deposit the amount of Rs. 1725/ -. This was objected to by the supurdagars. Their objections were ultimately rejected and the Magistrate by virtue of an order dated 29th June, 1972 asked the supurdagars to deposit this amount. Against this order, the supurdagars, namely, the present revisionist went up in revision. The revision, however, was rejected, and that is how the present revision has been filed.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised from the other side who were not made parties but on behalf of one Talam, Sri Rajvanshi appeared and the objection was that since opposite parties were not made parties, the revision should be held as bad. I would have been inclined to allow this point, but I find that the order of the Magistrate being erroneous and illegal, it has to be quashed and, therefore, I do not think it was necessary to ask the revisionists to make interested persons parties to the revision. I am not entering into the question whether it was the matter between the Court and the supurdagars with which the other party was not concerned. In this case, it is clear that although the crop may have been estimated, but at no stage efforts were made by the Magistrate to get the amount deposited from the supurdagars before they were allowed to harvest the crop. The question arises whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to ask supurdagars to deposit tentative amount relating to the crop or whether this is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In my view, Section 517 Explanation appended to it does not come to the rescue of any party because in order to attract Explanation to Section 517, it is essential that instead of property something in the shape of money or property should be there by way of conversion or exchange which could be termed to be property about which proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. In this case, the admitted position is this that the crop no longer exists. It has been harvested. It is also clear that although there was an estimate of the crop, but no money or anything was with the Court in lieu for the property. That being so, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass order for deposit of any amount representing the value of the crop which according to him, was misappropriated by the supurdagars. There is a ruling of this Court reported in Jhaboo v. Laxmi Narayan : AIR 1970 All 595, which is a direct authority for this proposition. In my view, the only remedy open to the Magistrate is either to launch criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust against the supurdagars or to give permission to the owner of the crop to file a civil suit. Suffice is to say that the order passed by the Magistrate directing supurdagars to deposit a certain amount representing the value of the crop is without jurisdiction and beyond his powers.
(3.) AS a result, I would allow the revision and quash the order of the Magistrate dated 29th June, 1972. The record will now go back to the trial Court for taking such necessary action on the lines indicated above as he may be inclined to take.;