B. L Yadav, J. - (1.) BY present revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) order dated 24-2-87 passed by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge Ballia allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 6-9-86 passed by the Magistrate, is sought to be quashed.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are these. THE opposite party no. 2 has lodged a report at the police station Kotwali Ballia that the husband of the present applicant has taken possession of the vehicle (No. B.R.A. 9448), by playing mischief with him and the same be delivered to him. On this report the police Kotwali obtained the possession of the said vehicle from applicant, but kept it at the police station. THE applicant as a vendee also claimed the said vehicle. THE said report was sent to the Superintendent of Police. A complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 29-7-85 against the applicant and the same is still pending. On 29-11-85 the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate to obtain the possession of the said vehicle, and notice was given to the opposite party no. 2 who appeared and himself claimed the possession. The Magistrate by order dated 6-9-86 directed the vehicle to be given in possession of the applicant on her executing the personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- Against that order revision was filed by the opposite party no. 2 which has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the order passed by the Magistrate was an interlocutory order and the revision was not maintainable against that order, in view of section 397 (2) of the Code. The order of the Magistrate was quite legal as it was passed under section 451 of the Code, and there was no illegality or irregularity in it, nor there was any justification for interference. The reliance was placed on Ajai Singh v. Nathi Lal, 1978 ACrR 140, N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala, 1979 ACrR 432 and Kalpnath Singh v. Sheo Nath Rai, 1979 ACrR 311.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, urged that the order passed by the Magistrate was not interlocutory order hence the revision before the Sessions Judge was maintainable and as the registration of the vehicle was in the name of opposite party no. 2 hence he was entitled to the possession. The reliance was placed on R. K. Jaiswal v. State of U. P., 1984 ACrR 290. Having heard learned counsel for the parties points for determination are as to whether the order under section 451 of the Code was an interlocutory order, and in case it is assumed not an interlocutory order, whether Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside that order, keeping in view the provisions of section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act).;