1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 541/2008 Satish Mahadeo Sewake and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 25 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Ahrikar, learned A.P.P. for the non applicant. 2. The applicants are implicated in the Crime No. 205/2006 registered under Section 420, 467, 471, 109 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. at Police Station Saoner. During the course of investigation, Bank accounts of the applicants were seized and frozen and the applicants were not allowed to operate the same. The police filed chargesheet and the learned Magistrate registered Criminal Case No.190/2007. The applicants, therefore, moved an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Exh.-3 in the 2 above said Criminal Case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner for issuance of directions to the police to release the bank accounts of the applicants. The learned J.M.F.C. Saoner, rejected the applicant's application at Exh.-3 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 7/9/2007 and the applicants being aggrieved, preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Nagpur. The learned incharge Sessions Judge dismissed the applicants revision on the sole ground that the revision challenging the order under Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. This order is impugned in the present application. 3. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Milind Prabhakar Rokade ...vs... State of Maharashtra & anr; 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1941 and submitted that order under Section 451 Cr. P. C. is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, revision under Section 3 397 Cr. P. C. is perfectly maintainable. Mr. Ahrikar, learned A.P.P. does not dispute the legal position. 4. The learned Incharge Sessions Judge, in order to arrive at a conclusion that order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order relied upon decision of the Patna High Court in Ravindra Nath Singh ..vs.. State of Bihar and another; 2002 (2) (Patna High Court) and decision of the Allahabad High Court in Murlidhar ...vs... State of U. P. and another; 1992 Cri. L. J. 5. The issue whether order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order is no more res integra inasmuch as there is direct judgment on this issue of this Court. The learned Single Judge in Milind Prabhakar Rokade (supra) considered the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. and held that the order under Section 451 is not interlocutory in nature and, therefore, is revisionable under Section 397 (2) of the Cr. P. C. 6. In view of this judgment of this Court, the learned 4 incharge Sessions Judge could not have dismissed the applicants revision on the ground of maintainability relying upon the above judgments of Patna and Allahabad High Court. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the impugned order deserves interference. The application is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order:- (a) The impugned order dated 01.10.2007 passed by I/c. Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Satish and one ..vs.. State of Maharashtra is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court, Nagpur for hearing afresh. The learned Judge shall register the applicants' revision and, thereafter, dispose of the same on merits, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 5 (c) The parties shall remain present before the District & Sessions Court, Nagpur on 07.07.2008. (d) The application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE kahale