- (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has arisen in the following circumstances: Petitioners 1 to 6 are Khatedar tenants of Khasra Nos. 120 and 229 in village Setrawa which they had purchased on 293-73 from petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 Nain Singh and Kushal Singh for Rs. 3,000/- by a registered sale deed. This land at one time was the khudkasht land of Ajit Singh and Kushal Singh. On resumption of Jagirs they became khatedar tenants and had been so recorded in the revenue record from Samvat year 2013. In Samvat year 2028 Ajit Singh executed a will in favour of Nain Singh petitioner No. 8 in respect of his share in the aforesaid khasra numbers. After the death of Ajit Singh in Samvat year 2028 Nain Singh became the joint khatedar with Kushal Singh. It is how that the lands were sold by them to the petitioners and put in their poss]ession.
(2.) HAMIR Singh claimed that he was an adopted son of Ajit Singh and he claimed the aforesaid land to be entirely his even to the exclusion of Kushal Singh. Entries in the settlement and revenue record from the year Samvat 2013 until 2nd July, 1974, were also in his name. Khasra No. 229 was mortgaged by Ajit Singh to one Aam Singh on 30-11-67 for Rs. 1,044/- by an unregistered deed. Hamir Singh filed a complaint under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and also prayed for attachment on the basis of the deeds of adoption and mortgage as aforesaid.
(3.) IT appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur made the preliminary order and the order of attachment on 22-7-74. The learned Magistrate directed the S. H. O. , Shergarh to take possession of the land and the standing crop. The petitioners filed a revision against this order in the Court of Session, Jodhpur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated 18-4-75 dismissed the revision petition holding that the order was an interlocutory one. The learned Judge observed that the learned Commentators of Dr. Nandlal's New Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have observed at page 908 of Volume I (IInd Edition 1974) that an order under Section 146, Cr. P. C. 1973 has none of the attributes of finality. When the subject of dispute is attached or placed in the custody of a receiver, he is custodia legis and his possession enures to the benefit of the party who is ultimately successful. Referring to the provisions of Order 39, C. P. C. the learned Judge was of the view that the order to appoint a receiver is not a final decision. If an interpretation otherwise were accepted, then, clause (a) of Sub-section (6) to Section 145, Cr. P. C. would become redundant in cases in which an attachment has been effected. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed.;