STATE OF MYSORE Vs. ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the State challenging the order of disposal of property passed under S.516/A Crl.P.C. by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 3-10-1970, in Crime No.412 of 1970 on Ms file, ordering return of the explosives is favour of the respondent on his undertaking on indemnity bond that he would be prepared to produce a sum of Rs.5,000 in Court whenever required by the Court and would be agreeable to keep the said sum of Rs.5,000 at the disposal of the Court for forfeiture or confiscation and on his furnishing one surety bond jointly and severally liable along with himself. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows. On information received that some explosives were stored, the Circle Inspector of Police. Commercial Street Division, Bangalore, raided the house of one Syed Salauddin at House No. 4-C, No. 5, Street, Chandinichowk Bangalore-1. On searching the house, he found, as per the case of the State, 2,925 gelatines (dynamites) in the house He also found in a car bearing No.MYO 9019 parked near the house, 20 packets of detonators. The gelatines and the detonators were seized under a mahazar and a complaint was given bv the Circle Inspector of Police and on that basis 8 case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police for offences punishable under S.5(3)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. When the investigation was still going on, the seizure was reported and with the permission of the Court the articles were kept in safe custody with M/s.S.A.Sreenivasan and Co . who are the agents for explosives, Indian Explosives Ltd., and the said seized detonators and gelatines are kept in their magazine at Yeshvantpur.

(2.) On 28-9-1970 the respondent and 71 others filed an application praying for return of the seized articles for the reasons mentioned by them in their application. The 71 others authorised the present respondent to receive the article if return of the same was ordered by the learned Magistrate. The matter was heard by the learned Magistrate and ultimately the learned Magistrate passed a bald order stating that in view of the contentions in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the application which are not directly and effectively controverted by the Investigating Officer in his report, the said seized articles are liable to be returned on the conditions already narrated above in one of the preceding paragraphs. It is contended by the State that this order passed by the learned Magistrate is not according to law and is liable to be set aside and, therefore, should be set aside.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader urged that no reasons are found in the said application filed by the respondent and 71 others to warrant thid unusual step of returning material objects required in a criminal case. He also urged that the said authorised agent M/s. Sreenivasan & Co. have intimated as per their letter dated 14th of October 1970, which ia produced along with the revision petition filed by the State, that the said explosives are good for nearly 9 to 12 months if properly stored, and, therefore, it cannot at all be contended that the articles are perishable. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the articles belonged to many persons who are the claimants and they have, in the court, produced bills for having purchased the articles, and, therefore, their claim should not be brushed aside on the ground that the seizure has been made from two places, viz., the house and the car. According to him, they are entitled to show that they are entitled to have possession of these articles.