B S TOOKAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, confirming on appeal under S.454 of the CrlPC the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, and thereby sanctioning the disposal of property in favour of the complainant.

(2.) The accused one B.S.Tookappa is the proprietor of a rice mill known as Sri Veerabhadreswara Rice and Flour Mill situate at the village Benavalli of Hosanagar Taluk. He was appointed as sub-agent by the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Hosanagar (hereinafter to be referred as the Co-operative Society) . The Cooperative Society was engaged in procuring levy of paddy from the growers through the Food Corporation of India. After the levy was complete, the Co-operative Society used to hand over the paddy to the petitioner- accused for keeping the same in their godown for which charges were to be paid. Upon receiving directions from the Co-operative Society, the paddy was required by the petitioner-accused to be hulled, for which hulling charges were paid. Accordingly between the dates 1-5-1973 and 24-5-1973 certain transactions were made between the Co-operative Society and the petitioner-accused and on 24-5-1973, 345 bags of paddy weighing 258 quintals and 75 Kgs were found entrusted for hulling to the petitioner- accused. Out of the total quantity supplied for hulling, 126 quintals of paddy were returned back 10 the Co-operative Society by the accused on 24-5-1973. In this manner 132 quintals of paddy remained to be supplied and since the accused refused to supply the same, a complaint was filed against him by the Co-operative Society on 30-7-1973. That was a complaint for the oftence under S.409 of the IPC. During the investigation, the police setzed from the possession of the accused 149 quintals and 70 Kgs of paddy under Ext.P12 dt.5-8-1973. It appears the accused claimed Rs.796 for hulling charges and a further amount of Rs.1000 which he had deposited with the Co-operative Society for the security.

(3.) While the case was pending before the Magistrate, some interim order was obtained releasing the seized paddy in favour of the accused. Against that order passed by the learned Magistrate obviously under Section 451, both the complainant and the accused came in two. revisions CrRPs.464 and 504 of 1973 before the High Court. It was held on 11-1-1974 that the accused would remain in possession of the property seized and it he would be able to dispose of the paddy, he would give security to the extent of the market value of the paddy. Accordingly the accused gave security to the Court to the extent of Rs. 14,000 said to be the market value of the paddy. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, before whom the trial was pending, decided the case and acquitted the accused on 6-9-1975. While making the order of acquittal, the Magistrate further ordered under S.452 for disposal of the property seized which was the subject matter of the dispute. The learned Magistrate ordered that the paddy was already sold by the accused and as it was entrusted to him and obviously belonged to the complainant, the latter was entitled to get its possession. Since the security deposit was there before the Court, the learned Magistrate directed that a sum of Rs.1796 due from the Co-operative Society to the accused be defrayed from the total security and the rest of the amount being the money equivalent to the paddy seized be given to the Co-operative Society. The accused felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate and came in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge under S.454. The learned Sessions Judge, however agreed with the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The present revision is directed against that decision of the learned Sessions Judge.