STATE OF MYSORE Vs. LAXMI TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application was filed before the District Magistrate of Bellary in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8 of 1961 by two petitioners (1) Sree Lakshmi Trading company represented by its partner T. Hanumanna and 2. R. Shankarappa, under the provisions of Sections 516-A, 517 and 523 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the sandalwood billets that are kept in custody and seized as per order of the District Magistrate in November, 1960 be ordered to be handed over to them. They relied on certain documents in proof of their contention that they had the requisite permission from the Forest Authorities as well as the Revenue Authorities for cutting those billets from patta lands which the first petitioner purchased. An unregistered sale deed dated 1-8-1960 by which the second petitioner Shankarappa sold all his rights in 345 sandalwood trees standing on the patta lands in favour of the first petitioner, viz., Sree Lakshmi Trading Company for a sum of Rs. 15.000/-was also produced,

(2.) Proceedings in respect of these sandalwood trees were taken by the Forest Authorities as early as 11-11-1960. The Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle filed an application for the issue of a search warrant against the second respondent Shankarappa on the ground that there were suspected cases of billets of sandalwood cut from the Government Forest and kept in his house. The District Magistrate issued a search warrant and further ordered seizure of the billets. The report of the Forest Range_ Officer dated 16-11-1960 indicates that these billets were" seized. On 17-11-1960 the Forest Range Officer of Hospet made a report to the Magistrate concerned indicating that forest offences were committed in respect of those billets, and prayed for their detention. By the order of 20-11-1960 the prayer of the Forest Range Officer was granted and the billets were detained in safe custody pending investigation of the case. This is the previous history leading to this petition. When years thereafter no action was taken by the authorities in respect of those billets, an application was filed for the return thereof, before the District Magistrate, Bellary.

(3.) The District Magistrate enquired Into the matter and found that the relevant provision that applied to the facts of the case was Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. He found that the investigation of the case had taken years for completion. According to him "the retention of the property pending investigation does not mean the retention of the property for any number of years". Therefore in his opinion that was a fit case where an order was called for as follows: I, therefore, order that period of three months is given to the respondents to send up the case or to submit a final chargesheet against the accused if they have committed an offence and in case the respondents do not send up any case within that period, the property will have to be returned to the petitioners, and I further order that the property which are seized by the respondents shall be returned to the petitioners within three months if no case is sent up against the accused.