( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore requesting this Court to set aside the order d|. 31-1-1974 purported to have been passed by this Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bangalore Sub-Divn Bangalolre in case No. EST|cca /23/73-74. ( 2 ) A few facts leading to this reference may be narrated briefly as follows: one J. K. Narayana Rap, who is a party to this reference was working as Village Accountant of Gavipur Firka Villages of Bangalore North Taluk. His services were terminated by the Deputy Commr, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore by his order d|. 21-7-1973. J. K. Narayana Rao evaded handing over charge of the records that were with him as Village Accountant. Repeated requests were made to him personally. But even then he did not hand averthe relevant records. Notices were issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore north Taluk, Bangalore calling upon him to hand over charge and the relevant public papers that were in his custody. Narayana Rao did. not hand over charge and the papers. It was found that, in the absence, of the records that were with Narayana Rao, great harassment, hardship and inconvenience was being caused to the public. ( 3 ) UNDER the aforementioned circumstances, the concerned Asst Commr passed the following order as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Divn, bangalore because he was also a Sub-Divl Magistrate :"in the Court of the Sub-Div Magistrate Bangalore Sub-Divn. Bangalore. Case No. EST. CCA. 23/73-74 sub:-In the matter of recovery of Govt Accounts from Sri J. K. Narayana Rao, Ex-Shanbhogue. Whereas, the services of J. K. Narayana Rao, Ex-Shanbhogue of gavipur Firka Villages, Bangalore North Taluk has been terminated by the Deputy Commr, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore, vide termination orders No. HOA. 55 72-73 dt. 21-7-1973; whereas, the said Narayana Rao, though he has been served with the orders of termination, reported to be evading to hand over charge of the village accounts and repeated personal requests and notices issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, have had no effect on the said Sri Narayana Rao and whersas in the absence of such village accqunts, the public are put to hardship and inconvenience; and whereas it appears to this Court that recovery of these accounts is very essential in the larger interests of Public Service. Therefore, I Narendra Singh, Sub-Divl Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Divn, bangalore hereby order for searching the residence of Sri J. K. Narayana Rao, Ex-Shanbhogue residing at 435 8th Main Road Hanumanthanagar, bangalore-18 and any other premises wherein these accounts are suspected to be lodged and secure) these accounts as contemplated under S. 96 of the, Crlpc, 1898- as amended by Mysore Act 13 of 1965 and Central amendments and further authorise the Sub inspector of Police Hanumanthanagar Police Station to execute this order secure the accounts and hand over them to the Tahsildar, Bangalore north Taluk or any such person who is authorised by the Tahsildar to receive these accounts. Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this day the 31st january, 1973. J. K. Narayana Rao filed Crlrp. 7 of 1974 In the Court of the Sessions judge Bangalore and the learned Sessions Judge found that there was all the force in the contention put forward on behalf of J. K. Narayana Rao and therefore, the order of the learned Sub-Divl Magistrate dt. 31-1-74 etxcerpted above was not sustainable In law and it was required to, be set aside by this Court. He therefore, made this reference. Sri T. Venkanna, learned Counsel appearing for J. K. Narayana Rao, supported the, reference, and pointed out that on the face of it the order has been passed by the Sub-Divl Magistrate exercising his powers under chap. VII, Crlpc, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the 'code) and it is no disputed that no proceeding under the Code was pending and that the recovery of the Govt papers said to be lying with Narayana Rao, were required in a proceeding pending under the Code. He, on this basis, contended that the Asst Commr who is also the Sub-Divn Magistrate had no power to issue a search warrant under Chap. VII of the Code. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was right in making a reference for seating aside the order passed by the Sub-Divl Magistrate directing issue of search warrant. He, on this basis, contended that the Asst Commr who is also the Sub-Divn Magistrate had no power to issue a search warrant under Chap. VII of the Code. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was right in making a reference for seating aside the order passed by the Sub-Divl Magistrate directing issue of search warrant. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that though the order purports to have been issued by the Sub-Divl Magistrate who, is also the asst Commr on the Revenue Side, it must be presumed that it has been issued by an Asst Commr exercising his delegated powers of a Dy Commr under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and hence, the order in question is well-sustained when 9. 23 of the Act is looked into and therefore], it is not in the interests off justice necsesary to set aside the order. ( 4 ) SRI T. Venkanna urged that even if S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act is taken into consideration, it would be seen that a reference is made) to Chap. VII, oi the Code, and therefore, the Dy Commrs and the Asst Commrs would be magistrates and they can act only as Magistrates under Chap. Vil of the cqde. Hence the search warrant issued by the Sub-Divl Magistrate cannot be sustained and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was: right in making a reference for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divl Magistrate. Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:- i am given to understand that all the powers exercisabla by Deputy commrs have been delegated to the Asst Commrs by virtue of S. 10 of the act. Therefore it is clear that an Asst Commr has also the power to act under Sec. 23 of the Act. A plain reading of S. 23 (l) (b)of the Act shows that the Asst Commr has been invested with the power to, issue a search warrant when the persons concerned are serving or were serving in the Revenue Dept or under the dy Commr of Land Records of the Dy Commr for Settlement only when the recovery of public papers or other property of the State Govt becomes necessary. Sri Narayana Rao was evidently serving as a Village Accountant and therefore in the Revenue Department. Sri Narayana Rao was evidently serving as a Village Accountant and therefore in the Revenue Department. It is undisputed that what are sought to be recovered are public papers which narayana Rao was supposed to have had as a Village Accountant, therefore, the necessary ingredients enabling exercise, of the, power vested in a Dy Commr or an Asst Commr under S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act are present in the case on hand. Now the contention of Sri T. Venkanna that by virtue of S. 23 (l) (b) a Dy Commr or an Asst Commr becomes a Magistrate exerciaing powers under Chap. Vil of the Code is to be examined. A reading of S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act further shows that the power to issue search warrant is vested in the Dy Commrs and the Asst Commrs not because of the provisions of the Code but because of 3. 23 (1) (b) of the act itself. The latter part of S. 23 (1) (b) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that in respect of search warrants issued by the Dy Commrs or the) asst Commrs, the said Dy Commrs or the Asst Commrs can exercise all the powers that a Magistrate can lexercise under Chap. VII of the Coda. So; what is clear to my mind is that the power to issue search warrants for for a limited purposs narrated and discussed in the preceding paragraph is vested in the Dy Commrs and the Asst Commrs by virtue of S. 23 (l) (b) at the Act itself. By S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act itself, further power that a Magistrate could exercise, while issuing search warrant under Chap. VII of the Code, is also vested in the Dy Commrs and the Asst Commrs. It would not be, correct to understand S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act to mean that the Deputy Commrs and the Asst Commrs become Magistrates exercising powers under Sec. 96 of the Code only while issuing search warrants and they remain mere Dy Commrs and Asst Commrs while! enforcing the search warrants. Hence, these, acts of Dy Commrs and Asst Commrs under S. 23, (1) (b) of the Act cannot at all be the acts of the Magistrate exercisable under Chap. VII of the Code. Therefore I reject this contention. enforcing the search warrants. Hence, these, acts of Dy Commrs and Asst Commrs under S. 23, (1) (b) of the Act cannot at all be the acts of the Magistrate exercisable under Chap. VII of the Code. Therefore I reject this contention. ( 5 ) SRI Venkanna contended that the order in question clearly shows that the search warrant was issued by the officer not as an Asst Commr acting under 9. 23 of the Act but as a Sub-Divl Magistrate, Bangalore and hence, on the face of it, it is unsustainable because the recovery of public papers was not for any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code Mr. Venkanna is right in his contention. But the question is whether the order by itself is unjust and rqquires to, be set aside by this Court in exercise, of its revisional jurisdiction. Sri Venkanna urged that in view of the interpretation of S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act made as above, the search warrant issued by an asst Commr or a Dy Commr would not be revisable either by the Sessions judge or by this Court under the provisions of the Code. This contention is sound. If the order in question is construed as an order passed by the asst Commr in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S. 23 (l) (b) of the, Act, it will have to be held that no revision lies against such order before the Sessions Judge and hence no revision lies in this Court under the provisions of the Code as the order would not be evidently made, under the provisions of the Code. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been narrated and discussed in the, preceding paragraphs, i have no hesitation in hqlding that though the order in question purports to have been passed by the Officer as Sub-Divl Magistrate, it is sustainable, because, of the powers vested in the said officer himself by s. 23 (l) (b) of the Act and interests of justice do not require the said order to be set aside When it is seen that the order is deemed to have been passed under S. 23 (l) (b) of the Act, it has to be held that no revision under the code lies and hence the revision petition is not competent. Sri Venkanna, lastly urged that in view of Ss. Sri Venkanna, lastly urged that in view of Ss. 49 and 56 of the Act, it would be open to his client J. K. Narayana Rao to agitate against the order in question before the Tribunal and at this stage, that remedy is likely to be barred by the period of limitation and therefore, this Court ought not to construe the order as haying been made by the officer in his capacity as Asst Commr exercising powers under 9. 23 (1) (b) of the Act. I do not find any difficulty in the way of Sri Narayana Rao, the client of sri T. Venkanna in this behalf. Sri Narayana Rao has been bona fida pursuing his remedy before the Sessions Judge, and 'this Court and the period taken in pursuing this remedy has to be taken into consideration while computing the period of limitation in case Sri Narayana Rao chooses to agitate either under S. 49 or under S. 56 of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, this reference is rejected. --- *** --- .