PERUMAL PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of an order made by the Stationery First Cass Magistrate of Kottar. A prosecution was started before the Magistrate under S.22 of Act I of 1122. On behalf of the prosecution, one witness was examined.

(2.) The question of law raised on behalf of the defence found favour with the Magistrate who held that since the period for which the Act was in force had expired by the time the trial commenced, although on the date of seizure the Act was in force, the accused could not be convicted. In this view, there was no use in hearing the other witnesses who were cited on behalf of the prosecution. The Magistrate accordingly discharged the accused under S.250 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure on the strength of the decision cited on behalf of the accused. In the same order, the Magistrate directed that the paddy that was in the lorry in respect of which the offence was alleged to have been committed, should be confiscated.

(3.) The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed on behalf of the first accused, the driver of the lorry and exception is taken in this revision case to that part of the order of the Magistrate which directs the confiscation of the paddy seized from the lorry. It is contended by the petitioners learned counsel that the paddy was the property of PW 10 who had not been examined before the accused persons were discharged by the Magistrate and it is argued that the direction made by the Magistrate that the paddy should be confiscated cannot be supported and must be set aside in revision.