1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.PETITION NO.1304/2009 Radhey Shyam Agarwal Vs. State Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Saran, P.P. for the State. ****** This misc. petition has been filed assailing the order of the learned trial court dated 22.4.2009 passed u/s.457 of the Cr.P.C. and the order of learned revisional court dated 18.6.2009, dismissing the revision petition. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition being not maintainable. It held that the order passed u/s.457 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interlocutory and not a final order and therefore the revision petition thereagainst is not maintainable in view of proviso to sub-clause (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel cited the judgement of this Court in Jugal Kishore vs. Babulal- 1983 RLW 163 and argued that this Court in the aforesaid case has taken the view that a distinction has been drawn between an interim order passed u/s.451 and a final order passed u/ss.452 and 457. It is contended that the learned revisional court passed the impugned order in ignorance of 2 the aforesaid binding judgement of this Court. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order passed by the revisional court be set aside and the matter be remanded back for being decided on merits. Learned PP opposed the petition, but was not in a position to dispute the legal proposition of law laid down by this Court in Jugal Kishore, supra. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that this Court has already laid down the law that while an order passed u/s.457 is temporary in nature, this is so because Section 451 is attracted when investigation is pending, whereas the orders passed u/s.452 and 457 are to be placed under a different pedestal and therefore they have been rightly said to be final order because it is at that stage that the property is required to be delivered to the person entitled thereto. The Court has given the reasoning that while passing interim order for considering the property u/s.451, the Court is not required to hold an enquiry as to whether the person who is entitled to possession thereof but while final order u/s.452 and 457, such enquiry has to be necessarily made. In view of above, the impugned order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained. The order dated 18.6.2009 passed by Special Judge, Special Court (Prevention of Sati) & Additional District and Sessions 3 Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded back to that Court to decide this revision petition afresh in accordance with law. The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-