Restoration of attached property after Section 145 proceedings and revisional bar under CrPC apply only to the party who filed the earlier revision.

After cancellation of preventive proceedings under Section 145(5) CrPC, the Magistrate is not functus officio and may pass incidental orders to restore possession to the person from whom property was taken at attachment, but cannot reopen possession on a fresh merits enquiry. If the record does not clearly support restoration of status quo ante, the parties must be left to the civil court. The revisional bar under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) applies only to the person who invoked the earlier Sessions Court revision, so the opposite party is not barred from filing a revision before the High Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after cancellation of proceedings under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate becomes functus officio or can pass incidental orders restoring possession of attached property; (ii) Whether a revision before the High Court is barred when the party had unsuccessfully contested an earlier revision before the Sessions Judge under Sections 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether, after cancellation of proceedings under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate becomes functus officio or can pass incidental orders restoring possession of attached property.

Analysis: The provisions governing preventive possession disputes were read as permitting the Magistrate, after dropping proceedings because no breach of peace survived, to wind up the matter by making consequential orders on the basis of material already on record. The reasoning accepted that the Magistrate could not embark upon a fresh enquiry into actual possession on the merits after the proceedings were dropped, but could restore possession to the person from whom it had been taken at the time of attachment if the record clearly disclosed that fact. Where restoration of status quo ante could not be worked out from the record, the proper course was to retain custody and leave the parties to the civil court.

Conclusion: The Magistrate does not become functus officio and may pass incidental orders restoring the property to the person from whom possession was taken at attachment.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision before the High Court is barred when the party had unsuccessfully contested an earlier revision before the Sessions Judge under Sections 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The revisional scheme was construed to bar a further revision only by the same person who had already invoked the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction. The finality attached by Section 399(3) was held to operate in relation to the person at whose instance the Sessions Judge was moved, not against a different party who merely resisted that revision. Accordingly, the opposite party in the Sessions Court was not precluded from approaching the High Court in revision.

Conclusion: The revision before the High Court by the opposite party was maintainable and was not barred by Sections 397(3) or 399(3).

Final Conclusion: The order of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the Magistrate's restoration order was reinstated, since the Magistrate had jurisdiction to make incidental winding-up orders and the High Court revision was competent.

Ratio Decidendi: On cancellation of preventive proceedings under Section 145(5), the Magistrate may make consequential orders to restore status quo ante on the basis of existing record, but may not conduct a fresh enquiry into possession; and the bar on a second revision under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) applies only to the same person who invoked the earlier revisional jurisdiction.

---