Provisions of Section 520 confers right of appeal.

This is a revision against the order passed by the District Magistrate of Madurai in C.A. No. 7 of 1953. The appeal was preferred by the State against the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Madurai Town. Before the Sub-Magistrate the petitioner herein was charged under section 65 of the Madras City Police Act in that on 21st November, 1952, the petitioner was having in his godowns bearing door Nos. 1 to 6 at East Market Street, Madurai Town, 256½ bags of Tadepalligudem rice which is imported exclusively by the Government from Tadepalligudem and supplied to consumers through retail agents appointed by the Government. The petitioner was asked to explain the possession of this as there was a reasonable doubt that they were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained The Sub-Magistrate found that there was no satisfactory explanation by the petitioner for the possession of these bags of rice and therefore convicted him under section 65 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to simple imprisonment for three weeks. As regards the bags of rice, when they were brought to court by the police they were sold to the Government wholesale agents through whom Tadepalligudem rice is supplied to retail agents at the rate fixed by the Government and the sale proceeds which amounted to about Rs. 10,580 and odd were kept in criminal court deposit. The Magistrate, after the conviction, considered the question whether it should be confiscated or not. Holding that confiscation will be a very severe punishment out of all proportion to the nature of the offence committed, he ordered the sale proceeds to be returned to the petitioner herein. Thereupon an appeal as stated above was preferred to the District Magistrate under section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned District Magistrate, before disposing of the appeal finally, wanted certain further particulars to enable him to dispose of this appeal. In his view it was necessary to know whether the petitioner was a rich man and whether he was a grain merchant. He also further wanted to know the antecedents of the petitioner. According to the District Magistrate, if he was a rich man he could well be made to forfeit the rice so that it may act as a deterrent punishment. Against his order calling for a finding, this revision has been filed.

The question that is raised by Mr. Kalyanasundaram appearing for the petitioner is that no appeal lies at all against the order of the Sub-Magistrate to the District Magistrate and even if the District Magistrate has powers under section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with this order of confiscation, his powers are limited by the words of section 520. So far as the right of appeal is concerned it is clear that under the Code of Criminal Procedure unless a right of appeal is specially provided for no appeal lies from an order of a Criminal Court (vide section 404 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure by and under which a right of appeal is provided against an order passed under section 517. At any rate Chapter XXXI of the Code which relates to appeals, does not contain any provision for an appeal from an order under section 517. We have therefore to rely only on section 520. Section 520 is as follows:

“Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under section 517, section 518, or section 519 passed by a Court Subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just.”

“Any Court of appeal................may direct any order under section 517” does not mean that a right of appeal under section 517 is granted under section 520 It only means, any Court to which an appeal lies from the Court which convicts and from which an appeal is provided, such a Court under section 520 has got the power to pass an order revising,