REVANAPPA Vs. S N RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed aganist the order dated 28-4-1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, in C.C.No. 55 of 1982 directing the police to seize and produce the articles in question before him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a private complaint under S. 200 Cr. P.C., before the Magistrate alleging that the petitioners herein have committed offences under Ss. 451, 448, 380 and 352 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and prayed that action may be taken against them. That complaint was filed on 21-4-1982. As could be made out from the proceedings, the complainant also filed I. 94 and 200-order under S. 94- A.No. I purported to be under S.100 Cr. P.C., on the same day praying for issue of arrest warrant for search and seizure of the articles as listed in the application. On that day at the instance of the learned counsel for the complainant the case ws adjourned to 22-4-1982, on which day the Magistrate recorded the sworn, satements of the complainant and his two witnesses, who were present, then, as P.Ws. 1 to 3. Thereafter he came to the conclusion that offences under Ss. 451 and 380 read with S. 34 I.P.C. are disclosed against A-1 and A-2 and accordingly took cognizance of the said offences against them and ordered registration of a case for the aforesaid offences against both of them and ordered issue of summons, if process fee is paid, returnable by 12-5-1982. He also passed an order on that day issuing a search warrant under Sec.94 Cr.P.C., to the C.P.I. Shimoga City, for making search and production of the properties in question by 24-4-1982. On 28.4.1982 the learned Advocate for the complainant also filed an application praying for direction to the C.P.I, to seize the articles mentioned in the application and produce) the same before the court. The learned Magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and after perusing the report of -the C.P.I., in returning the search warrant, directed him to seize and produce the articles in question before the court by the next date of hearing. It is the legality and correctness of the said order that is being challenged by the accused in this revision petition.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent -complainant took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition. In other words, what he contended was that the accused are government servants and this petition has been filed on behalf of them by the State Public Prosecutor, which according to him is opposed to S. 24 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that such a thing should not be allowed and the 'culprits' should not be assisted by the State exchequer and this would be a bad precedent, if the State Public Prosecutor is allowed to appear in the case'. Sri K.H.N. Kuranga, learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that they have been authorised by the Government to appear and file the aforesaid petition.