G.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. PC has been preferred against the order 3rd May, 1988, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, directed to sell the crop, which was with the petitioner on 'Superdginama', and further directed to deposit the sale -proceeds of the crop in the court.
(2.) FOR the disposal of this petition, it is necessary to mention here the brief facts of this case. A civil dispute between the parties is pending with regard to Khasra Nos. 222 and 222/1107, situated in Village - -Harsora, A complaint was lodged under Section 145 Cr. PC by the SHO, PS - -Bansur, on 27th Sept., 1985, before the SDM, Behror with the prayer that there was likelihood of breach of peace between the parties with regard to possession over the aforesaid Khasras and therefore the said land be attached. The learned SDM, vide his order dated 28th Dec. 1985, directed the Tehsildar - -Bansur, to attach the aforesaid Khasras and Khasra No. 222/1106. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was filed before the Add. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, who, vide his order dated 1st Feb., '86, partly allowed the said revision, and the appointment of Receiver with regard to Khasra No. 222 was maintained; and Khasra Nos. 222/1106 and 222/1107, were ordered to be released from attachment. Birbal against this order filed a revision before this Court, which was Civil Revision Petition No. 59/86 and was decided on 20th March, 86, where by, it was dismissed, Consequently, the SDM, Behror directed the Tehsildar - -Bansur, vide his order dated 29th March,86, to release from attachment Khasra Nos. 222/2106 and 222/1107. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Misc. Criminal Petition No. 91/87 in this Court against the order dated 1st Feb., 1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2,Awar which was accepted by this Court on 21st Nov. '86, where in it was ordered by this Court that unless the suit pending between the parties was decreed, non -petitioner Ramswaroop and Birbal could not claim possession. The SDM Behror, on 4th August, 1987 directed the Tehsildar -Bansur to release the aforesaid Khasras of and from attachment and hand over their possession to petitioner Bhagchand. Thus the petitioner received the possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 222, 222/1106 and 222/1107, and should his crop of wheat of Khasra Nos. 222 and 222/1107. When the crop riped up, the non -petitioners, Ramswaroop and Birbal, came to the field and started harvesting it. The nephew of the petitioner. Matadeen, lodged a report at PS - -Bansur, to this effect, and the SHO, PS - -Bansur, started investigation and seized the harvested crop from the possession of non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. After the seizure, the, petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, for giving him the said crop on 'Supardginama'. The learned Magistrate on 12th April, 88 passed order forgiving the said crop on 'Supardgi -natna' to the petitioner. In compliance of that order, the crop was handed over to the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Bansur, on 12th April, 1988. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, Bansur, again considered the question of Supurdgi of the said crop, and he, vide the impugned order, ordered on 3rd May, 1988 that the crop be taken back from the petitioner and it be sold in the market and the sale proceeds be deposited in the court. This order has been challenged in this miscellaneous petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that with regard to the disputed land, twice, the parties had come to this Court, and every time the non -petitioners lost their case. The land which was attached under the order of the SDM, was released by this Court and it was handed over to the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner sowed wheat -crop in that filed; and when the crop riped up, the non -petitioners (Nos. 2 and 3) harvested the crop, and again, the matter came before the learned Magistrate, who, vide his order dated 12th April, 1988, handed over the crop to the petitioner on 'Supardgi -nama'; but subsequently, the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order, cancelled his earlier order dated 12th April, 1988 regarding Supardgi and directed the Tehsildar - -Bansur, that the crop be taken back from the possession of the petitioner, and that the same be sold in the market and the sale proceeds be deposited in the court. So the learned Magistrate recalled his earlier order for handing over the crop to the petitioner on 'Superdginama' The argument is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to have recalled his own order dated 12th April, 1988. If the non -petitioner were aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12th April, 1988 they could have preferred a revision petition against that order, and they should not have moved this Court if permitted. At that time, the non -petitioners did not take any step and kept silent. So when the order dated 12th April, 1988 was not challenged by the non -petitioners, it had become final and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall his own order; Therefore, the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1988 is an incorrect order argued Mr. Rathore, who, in support of his argument, relied on the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh : 1978CriLJ187 . In that case a complaint was filed Under Section 95 IPC, ..between the parties and both the parties had applied for copies of those proceedings. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had got the copy which was meant for the complaint by signing his name. The complaint also got his copy a few days after eventually. Then, the matter tossed from one Magistrate to another for inquiry and report and ultimately, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Cr.PC Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application for recalling his earlier order. The Magistrate passed no orders on that application, but he sent the case for inquiry, to another Magistrate. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate recalled the order of the previous Magistrate and ordered taking cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons. Then the matter went to Supreme Court, and their Lordships observed as under: There is no provision in Cr.PC empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. Inherent powers under Section 561 -A are only given to High Court and unlike Section 151, CPC, subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers.
(3.) IN the case of Sarkar v. MRT and Special Maintenance and Ors. 1980 Cr.LJ 948, it was observed as under: There is no provision in the Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall an order passed by him Section 482 empowers only the High Court to exercise inherent powers in appropriate circumstances mentioned therein. In these circumstances law does not permit a Magistrate to recall a judicial order even the Magistrate feels that there are justifiable grounds for the same. If a Magistrate is permitted to recall a judicial order against the provisions of statute the effect may be disastrous and High Court can correct such illegality in its revisional jurisdiction apart from the exercise of inherent powers. ;