IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.327 of 2007 KAUSHAL KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 9 31.07.2009 Petitioner’s case is that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. he was first party and O.P.Nos. 7 to 12 were 2nd Party. The further case is that during the proceeding, vide order dated 10th April 1995, the land was attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and the Anchal Adhikari was appointed as the Receiver and was directed to get the crops cut and deposit the sale proceeds in the Government Treasury. The further case is that the Anchal Adhikari deposited the sale proceed for one year and, thereafter, he did not deposit any sale proceed. Hence, the prayer is that the Anchal Adhikari be directed to deposit the sale proceeds for the period under attachment. Learned counsel for the State respondents filed counter affidavit with this averment that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was dropped vide order dated 14th October 1996. Copy of the order dated 14th October 1996 has been attached as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred Cr. Revn. no. 25 of 1997 challenging the dropping of the proceeding and vide order dated 13th August 1997, the order dropping the proceeding was set aside and the proceeding U/s 145 Cr.P.C. was restored. During hearing, copy of the order was produced which shows that the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was restored but there is no mention about the restoration of the attachment of the property u/s 146 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing photo copy of the order passed in the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. Copy of the order dated 6th April 1998 mentions that vide order dated 13th August 1997 of this Court the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was restored. The subsequent order dated 18th May 1998 of the Executive Magistrate mentions that the Anchal Adhikari had submitted a report that the parties had harvested the crop and at that time there did not exist any dispute between the parties nor any apprehension of breach was noticed. In view of this report, as mentioned in the order dated 18th May 1998, the Executive Magistrate mentions in the order that he did not feel it necessary to pass any further order regarding the matter. Thus, the learned Executive Magistrate does not appear to have passed any order regarding consideration of the attachment of the land as was ordered earlier and which order had automatically ceased when the proceeding had been dropped by the order dated 14th October 1996 of the learned Executive Magistrate. Thus when the order u/s 146 Cr.P.C. had ceased to exist due to the dropping of the proceeding and subsequently when the learned Executive Magistrate after revival of the proceeding did not pass any order for the continuation of the attachment of the land, rather stated that he did not feel it necessary to pass any order, there does not appear to be any basis for the petitioner to seek a direction to the Anchal Adhikari for depositing any amount and the sale-proceed for the party, as prayed. Thus, finding no merit, this application is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (C. M. Prasad,J)