IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14950 of 2009 MAHESH DUTT SHASTRI, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO DUTT PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR DIGHWARA TOLA, CHAKNOUR, P.S.- DIGHWARA IN THE DISTRICT OF SARAN (CHAPRA) ----- 1st Party Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LADDU RAI, SON OF SALABI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHOTANI, P.S.- DARIYAPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF SARAN. ----- 2nd Party-opp.party 2nd set. For the petitioner :- Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate Mr. Narandar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Bijoy Kant Mishra, Advocate ----------- 2 17.8.2009 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 20.2.2009 by which the Sub-divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran has reviewed the earlier order dated 25.11.2008. By order dated 25.11.2008, the Sub-divisional Officer refused the application filed on behalf of opposite party to recall the order of attachment with respect to the lands in dispute. The facts are that on 13.2.2009 there was a strike of the non gazetted officers which according to the petitioner resulted in paralyzing the work of the Sub-divisional Office. On that day i.e. on 13.2.2009, the opposite party filed an application for review. The next date fixed for hearing the matter was 20.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 firstly submits that the Sub-divisional Officer could not have reviewed his earlier order as there is no provision for review under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For this purpose he has relied on a judgment reported in 1977 SC 2425. Second point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that although there is a provision under Sub-Clause (1) of Section 146 wherein it is said that the Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of the dispute ought to have called for a report from the Officer Incharge and heard the parties in question before passing any such order. In the present case it appears that the date was fixed for hearing on 20.2.2009 wherein the first party did not appear and thereafter passed the aforesaid order. On an earlier occasion i.e. on 25.11.2008 the Court below had rejected the application and one month thereafter has passed the present order without assigning sufficient reasons for vacating the order of attachment. I am disposing of this matter without hearing the other side for the reasons that it 3 would only delay the proceeding and cause unnecessary harassment for both the parties with the direction that the Sub-divisional Magistrate should hear the parties, call for a report from the Officer Incharge and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the mean time, It is directed that the status quo should be maintained with respect to the lands in question. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)