Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. S. Chaturvedi and Mulla, JJ.
MUNESHWAR BUX SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE, RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 339 Of 1953
Decided On : 10/05/1955
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 523 - ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF PROPERTY - CONDITIONS - INQUIRY INTO OWNERSHIP - JURISDICTION - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - SECTION 561A - RELIEF TO AGGRIEVED PARTY.
Fact of the Case:
A motor lorry was recovered by the police from the possession of Raghunandan Prasad, who was accused of stealing it. The Magistrate, after investigation, found that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and submitted a final report. The lorry was then produced before the Magistrate, who ordered its release to Raghunandan Prasad on furnishing security. Later, on an application by the complainant, Muneshwar Bux Singh, the Magistrate ordered a further inquiry into the ownership of the lorry and directed that the release order be held in abeyance. The police submitted a report recommending that the lorry be given back to Muneshwar Bux Singh, and the Magistrate ordered its delivery to him. Raghunandan Prasad then applied for the return of the lorry, and the Magistrate, after changing his mind, ordered its return to him. Muneshwar Bux Singh challenged this order in revision, and the Sessions Judge upheld it. Muneshwar Bux Singh then filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate's initial order releasing the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad was a proper and legal order under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and could not be reviewed. The Court found that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of the lorry and that the subsequent orders passed by him were illegal. The Court also held that the Magistrate could not rely on the explanation to Section 517 of the CrPC to order the payment of the price of the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad, as Section 523 did not contain a similar provision. The Court further held that it could not exercise its inherent powers under Section 561A of the CrPC to grant relief to Raghunandan Prasad, as such relief would conflict with the provisions of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of the lorry under Section 523 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the Magistrate could rely on the explanation to Section 517 of the CrPC to order the payment of the price of the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad? 3. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 561A of the CrPC to grant relief to Raghunandan Prasad?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of the lorry under Section 523 of the CrPC because Section 523 only authorizes the Magistrate to order the delivery of property to the person entitled to its possession, not to determine ownership. 2. The Magistrate could not rely on the explanation to Section 517 of the CrPC to order the payment of the price of the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad because Section 523 did not contain a similar provision. 3. The High Court could not exercise its inherent powers under Section 561A of the CrPC to grant relief to Raghunandan Prasad because such relief would conflict with the provisions of the CrPC, which did not authorize the Magistrate to order the payment of the price of the lorry.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order directing the payment of the price of the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad.
( 2 ) ON the directions of the Superintendent of Police the recovered lorry was produced before Sri k. M. Ray, a Magistrate, presumably for a proper order to be passed under Section 523, Criminal p. C. Raghunandan Prasad applied to the Magistrate that the lorry should be returned to him. This application was filed by him on 18-7-1951 and the Magistrate asked for a report from the police. The police reported that the lorry may be returned to Raghunandan Prasad on his furnishing proper security. The learned Magistrate thereupon released the lorry in favour of Raghunandan prasad on 19-7-1951, on his furnishing the: security demanded from him. This order dated 197-1951 shall be referred by us as Order I in the rest of this decision.
( 3 ) FOUR days later on 23-7-1951, Muneshwar Bux Singh filed an application before Sri K. M. Ray alleging that although a final report has been submitted in this case, the applicant can produce satisfactory evidence about his ownership of the lorry and, therefore, the order of release passed in favour of Raghunandan Prasad may be withdrawn and the police may be asked to reconsider the case in the light of the evidence which was in his possession. Nest day, that is on 24-7-1951, Sri K. M. Ray passed the following order on this application:-
"s. O. Kotwali please make a further inquiry and report if evidence of ownership is available as stated by the applicant. My previous order for release of the truck may be held in abeyance. "
The police thereupon submitted a report on 30-7-1951 and this time it recommended that the lorry should be given back to Muneshwar Bux Singh. The learned Magistrate thereupon on 31-7-1951, ordered that this lorry should be handed? over to Muneshwar Bux Singh. We will refer to this order as IInd order in the rest of this decision. This time no security was taken from muneshwar Bux Singh.
( 4 ) WHEN Raghunandan Prasad came to know about this IInd order, he moved an application on 1-8-1951 praying that as the lorry was recovered from his possession, it should be handed back to him. It seems, that Sri K. M. Ray functioned as a Magistrate of this sub-division only upto 31-7-1951, and Sri Ain-ul Abdin was the Magistrate before whom the second application filed by Raghunandan Prasad was presented. On that very date Ain-ul Abdin passed an order on this application expressing his inability to revise an order passed by Sri. K. M. Ray. On the next day, that is 2-8-1951, Sri Ain-ul Abdin changed his mind and revising his earlier decision passed an order that this lorry should be returned to Raghunandan Prasad from whose possession it was recovered. We will refer to this order of 2-3-1951 as the IIIrd order in the rest of this decision.
( 5 ) MUNESHWAR Bux Singh went up to the Sessions Judge against the IIIrd order, but the Sessions judge upheld and maintained this order passed by Sri Ain-ul Abdin. Later on it was found that the lorry was sold by Muneshwar Bux Singh on 1-84951, when it was handed over to him in compliance with the IInd order. A fresh application was presented before Sri Ain-ul Abdin and a fresh order was passed by him on 23-4-1953 directing that Muneshwar Bux Singh should pay the price of the lorry to Raghunandan Prasad at the valuation given by him in his report. We will refer to this order as IVth order in the rest of this decision. Muneshwar Bux Singh went up in revision against the IVth order, but the learned Sess
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
