JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel for Union of India (Railway), Sri Anoop Trivedi learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 Anupam Maheshwari @ Tarun Godani and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision is directed against order dated 20.1.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge 8th Aligarh in criminal revision No. 230 of 2009 Anupam Maheshwari v. State of U.P. setting aside order dated 28.5.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) for releasing the property which is subject matter of case crime No. 1 of 2009 under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966. 3. The instant revision was filed on 28.1.2010. Certain urgency was urged by Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for Railway. The record was summoned from the Registry and the matter was heard. 4. Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel for revisionist states that the order impugned in revision has been obtained without notice to the involved party i.e. revisionist in the instant case (Union of India) in favour of opposite party No. 1 for release of railway property on a personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The order dated 29.1.2010 was passed by this Court staying operation of revisional Court’s order but before it could be signed, Sri Anoop Trivedi, counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 appeared on 5.2.2010 with a request that the order may not be signed. The order was not signed on an undertaking given by the counsel for opposite party No. 1 that property will not be lifted. The order passed by this Court on 29.1.2010 though is on record but it is an unsigned order. The instant revision was placed before Hon’ble Senior Judge for its nomination, which has been sent to this Court. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits and supplementary affidavits have been filed. After due notice to learned counsels for respective parties, the matter is being heard finally. 6. Sri Anoop Trivedi raises certain preliminary objection. First objection is in respect of maintainability of revision at the instance of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F. Allahabad as it is only the Investigating Agency. 7. Sri Trivedi has objected to the contention raised on behalf of revisionist that railway was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and ground No. 3 has been categorically and emphatically denied in paragraph No. 9 of counter affidavit. 7. Sri Trivedi has objected to the contention raised on behalf of revisionist that railway was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and ground No. 3 has been categorically and emphatically denied in paragraph No. 9 of counter affidavit. He has also placed paragraph Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8 of counter affidavit asserting that initially first information report was lodged at case crime No. 1 of 2009 at police station Kotwali Iglas, District Aligarh, which was subsequently transferred to R.P.F. 8. An application for release of the property was entertained by learned Magistrate directing Public Prosecutor R.P.F. to obtain instruction and file report of concerned officer of R.P.F. Several opportunities were given. On 22.5.2009, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Aligarh reprimanded Public Prosecutor for not producing report and last opportunity was given fixing 25.5.2009. Report was filed. Finally, application on behalf of opposite party No. 1 was rejected on 28.5.2009 by the Magistrate. 9. Sri Trivedi has pointed out that Public Prosecutor was heard before the order was passed on 28.5.2009. Thereafter, revision was filed by opposite party No. 1 before Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8th Aligarh. Therefore, submission made on behalf of Union of India that no opportunity of hearing was given, has seriously been contested by Sri Trivedi. He has also demonstrated that a complete parawise comments was filed before revisional Court by Inspector R.P.F. before final order was passed and, therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given. 10. Sri B.B. Paul Advocate appearing for Union of India has disputed both arguments. So far question of maintainability of revision at the instance of Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Allahabad is concerned, he has placed second supplementary affidavit to substantiate that there is a notification which is annexure SA-1 to the affidavit, dated 4.6.1992 issued by Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Railways/Rail Mantralaya (Railway Board) RBE No. 92/22 whereby Central Government has authorized the officers specifying in the schedule to act for and on behalf of Union of India in respect of any judicial proceedings pertaining to Railway Administration. At serial No. 32, Divisional Security Commissioner/Commanding Officer is one of the dignitaries who is authorized to partake in any judicial proceedings on behalf of Railway Administration. Therefore, it is seriously contended that Senior Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F. Allahabad was fully entitled to prefer the instant revision before this Court. 11. At serial No. 32, Divisional Security Commissioner/Commanding Officer is one of the dignitaries who is authorized to partake in any judicial proceedings on behalf of Railway Administration. Therefore, it is seriously contended that Senior Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F. Allahabad was fully entitled to prefer the instant revision before this Court. 11. Sri Paul has argued next that Union of India was not arrayed as a party. Memo of revision filed before Additional District & Sessions Judge 8th Aligarh, at the instance of opposite party No. 1 is placed before me wherein only State of U.P. is arrayed as a party. It is true that State of U.P. is arrayed as a party. Besides, on perusal of order sheet of the revisional Court dated 12.1.2010 it transpires that A.D.G.C. was heard, who is the counsel on behalf of the State and not Railway. However, on perusal of the order sheet, orders passed on previous dates are signed by ‘P.P. Rly.’ 12. After hearing learned counsels for respective parties and going through the record, it is true that Union of India was not arrayed as a party in the memo of revision filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8th Aligarh. Since it was not a party, there was no occasion for issuing notice to the Union of India and in view of Section 401(2), Cr.P.C., no order could be made prejudice to any person unless he has an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his defence. Accepting every word of learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, it is true that order sheet shows initials of the ‘P.P. Rly’ but this alone is not sufficient. The revisionist i.e. Union of India was not a party before Additional District & Sessions Judge and order passed in favour of Railway by the Magistrate was set at naught, this has definitely caused prejudice to the rights of Union of India and he could only be heard if he was a party to the proceedings before the Sessions Judge. 13. 13. So far objection that the instant revision cannot be maintained at the instance of Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Allahabad is concerned, is immaterial since under Section 397, Cr.P.C. the High Court has suo moto power to call for and examine record of any proceedings before inferior Court situated in its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed in any proceedings of such inferior Court. 14. Even if contention of Sri Trivedi is correct that there has to be a specific sanction by the Union of India after consultation of Senior Standing Counsel granting permission to challenge the order on behalf of Union of India, even then if order impugned in the revision is brought to the notice, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the order. I can not ignore it only on account of this technical objection. 15. I have not examined merits of the case. So far the question of release of goods sought at the instance of opposite party No. 1 is concerned, it is for the revisional Court to examine the documents and all the aspects on merit and pass an order in accordance with law. It can either pass an order itself or direct the concerned Court to pass fresh orders. 16. In view of what has been stated above, I quash the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (8th), Aligarh in Criminal Revision Nos. 230 of 2009 and 325 of 2009, arising out case crime No. 1 of 2009, under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and remand the case to the revisional Court for afresh decision. Opposite party No. 1 shall array Union of India as one of the parties before the Court below and after hearing both the parties, afresh order be passed in accordance with law. 17. It is further directed that copy of this judgment alongwith an application shall be placed before Additional District & Sessions Judge 8th, Aligarh within a period of three weeks from today. A date shall be fixed by the Court below and every endeavour shall be made to decide the matter within next three weeks by means of speaking order. The entire exercise should necessarily be completed within aforesaid period of six weeks. The instant revision is accordingly disposed of. A date shall be fixed by the Court below and every endeavour shall be made to decide the matter within next three weeks by means of speaking order. The entire exercise should necessarily be completed within aforesaid period of six weeks. The instant revision is accordingly disposed of. ————