The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's power to dispose of property under the Criminal Procedure Code is contingent on the property being produced before the court or in its custody. The judgment emphasized the importance of the availability of the property for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.

C. Honniah, J.—This is an application in revision by one Resave Kom Dyamangouda Path .against the order dated 6-7.196:i, by which the first Additional Sessions Judge, at Dharwar dismissed the petition filed by Bassavva Under Sections 517 and 520, Criminal P.C., hold. ing that the property claimed by her wag ,neither produced before the Court nor was it in the custody of the trial Court at the time of passing the order.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner gave first information report to the Police of Haveri in Dharwar District alleging that on the night of 28th November 1958 some per. sons entered her house, broke open the doors and committed theft of valuable articles consisting of gold ornaments of considerable value and also cash. The police recovered the gold ornaments and cash on the information furnished by five persons. on various dates. The details of the articles were noted down in the panchanam is. After investigation, the Police charge sheeted five persons alleging that they had committed theft of the gold ornaments and cash seized by them from the house of the petitioner, on the night of 28.11.1958.

The investigating officer sent the charge. sheet through the sub-inspector of police, directing him to produce the property before the Court as the property was entrusted to him for safe custody. It appears that the Court directed the sub. inspector to bring a goldsmith so that the property could be received by the Court after verification. As he bad not taken the goldsmith. the Sub-Inspector took back the property and kept the same in the guard room of the police station, making a note in the property register of the police Station. That Sub-Inspector was transferred from Haveri and another Sub Inspector took charge of the Police Station from him on 23.12.1959. At the time he took charge, he found the properties as mentioned in the property register by the previous Sub Inspector in tact.

That Sub. Inspector went on leave from 31.12.1960 and returned to duty on 9.1.1961. By then, the Court had Ben t a memo calling upon the Police of Haveri to produce the pro. parties attached in the case. The Sub-Inspector found then that the properties that had been kept in the box in the ;guard room missing. He registered a theft case in respect of those properties and after investigation submitted an 'A' summary. It could be seen from the observation made in the judgment of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Haveri in C. C. No. 358/64, which was the case with reference to those properties, that though the charge sheet was presented to Court on 20.2.1959, the properties remained with the Police till they were lost from the guard room. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate found A. 1 to A. 4 guilty Under Section 411, 1. P.C. and acquitted A. 5. In regard to the properties, this is what he stated in his judgment:

There will be no order as to the disposal of the property as no property is before Court even though it is proved that the properties from the possession of the complainant had been stolen. Besides 'A' summary has been sought and granted in Crime No. 2/61 where the very properties of this case were concerned.

One of the convicted persons (A. 3) preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Dharwar against his conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed the appeal. The other convicted pereons, it appear3, did not prefer any appeal. The third accused, aggrieved by the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, filed a. revision petition before this Court, challenging the conviction made against him by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge. this Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him by its order dated 24.11.1966.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application Under Sections 517 and 520, Cr.PC before the Sessions Judge at Dharwar praying that the Court may dispose of the articles stolen from her house and