- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Onkar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Brijesh Sahai, Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE challenge in the revision peti tion is against the order dated 18th April, 1990 passed by the 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in criminal revision No. 366 of 1989. The Pargana Magistrate Deoband, District Saharanpur passed order dated 13-7-1989 in case No. 78 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Hukam Dei v. Mathan Singh, that proceedings under Sections 145/146, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable and so the proceedings were dropped. The latter por tion of the order directed the Supurdar to deposit the price of 21 quintals of wheat in the Court and directed the disputed land to be released in favour of Hukam Dei first party. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the revision petition set aside the latter portion of the order of Pargana Adhikari in which he has directed the release of the disputed land in favour of Hukam Dei and it directed the price of 21 quintals of wheat to be deposited in Court. Sri Onkar Singh tried to take help from Section 457, Cr. P. C. in which there is provision for disposal of the seized property by t he police. There is no seizure is respect of the disputed property in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The provisions of Section 145, Cr. P. C. uses the word attach ment and not the seizure therefore, the provisions of Section 457, Cr. P. C. are not applicable in favour of the revisionist in respect of the disputed property attached under Sections 145/146, Cr. P. C. Since the order of Pargana Adhikari disposes the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. holding the same to be not maintainable there was no propriety for the latter por tion of the order directing the release of the disputed property in favour of one of the parties of the proceedings and for deposit of price of wheat in the Court because in the discussion portion the Par gana Adhikari noted that the dispute about the land was under consideration before the Settlement Officer of Con solidation where the appeal is pending. Any order in respect of the crops or the landed property will be passed by the Set tlement Officer of Consolidation where the appeal is pending, therefore, the order of Pargana Adhikari in respect of the at tached land or attached wheat crop was uncalled for and the order holding the proceedings non-maintainable.
(3.) THE revision petition, therefore, does not disclose merits and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;