Judgment:
ORDER
Lilamoy Ghosh, J.
1. Two short points have been raised on behalf of the petitioner in this revisional application. The first point is that the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore, should not have revised the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatal, as that was an interlocutory order. The second point urged has been that in any event the learned Sessions Judge's finding is wrong and illegal.
2. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Chittaranjan Das, the learned Advocate has appeared and has raised the points above mentioned.
3. Mrs. Dipti Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has supported the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
4. None appeared for the second parties O. P.
5. On hearing both the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State, I am of the view that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainable. By order dt. 12-3-81, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatal, attached the disputed plot and the O.C. of the P.S. concerned was appointed as receiver for looking after the disputed property. Earlier, as it is evident from the order of the learned Magistrate himself, there was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C Against that order dt. 12-3-81, the O.Ps. moved the Sessions Judge for invoking his revisional jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge observed that no petition under Section 146, Cr.P.C. was found in the record. That is a palpable mistake, the learned Sessions Judge committed. In fact, there is a petition dt. 12-3-81, in which the petitioner alleged that there was serious apprehension that even life may be in jeopardy unless proper steps were taken. The emergency in the matter was alluded to in the petition and the learned Magistrate has expressed his satisfaction as to the emergent nature in the matter. Such being the position, the learned Sessions Judge, without scrutinising the record should not have gone on the basis that there was no such petition, It also appears that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction as to the existence of an emergency, On the face of it, the order of the learned Magistrate was perfectly legal. The learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with that order of the learned Magistrate on the ground of non-existence of a petition. Secondly, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was in the nature of an interlocutory order. No revision application would lie against that. Still the learned Sessions Judge exercised that power, against the apparent state of the record. The order of the learned Sessions Judge thus suffers from intrinsic infirmity and illegality. It cannot be allowed to stand.
6. The revisional application is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dt. 5-1-82, setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Ghatal, is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is left undisturbed. The rule is made absolute. Records be sent down to the Court below forthwith.