N K MOIDINKUNHI Vs. K N ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, the de facto complainant in C. C. No. 697 of 1970, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Kasaragod, seeks to revise an order passed by the Court of Session, Tellicherry, ordering return of the sale proceeds of arecanuts involved in the case to the respondent who was the fifth accused in the case.

(2.) It was the petitioner, the only son of his aged father, who was managing his areca gardens. The petitioner had stocked in his house 17 bags of dried arecanuts with the marks "NK" on each bag, representing the initials of the petitioner who is N. K. Moideenkunhi. On July 18, 1970, the petitioner had been to Calicut and on his return to his house from Calicut at about 1 p.m. on the next day, he found these 17 bags of arecanuts missing. Immediately, he reported the matter to the local police who registered a case on the basis of his statement. In the course of investigation, on the same day, i.e., on 19th July 1970, 17 bags of arecanuts, each of which contained the mark "N. K." were seized from the house of the respondent. On completing the investigation, the respondent along with four others were charge sheeted for offences punishable under S.457, 380 and 411 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being a perishable article, these bags of arecanuts produced before court were sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in court. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate also directed the return of the sale proceeds and M. O. I series to the respondent. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner came up before this court in Crl. R. P. No. 243/71 and this court on hearing both sides confirmed the order of acquittal but interfered with the order of disposal of the property and directed the Magistrate to hold an enquiry under S.517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and pass appropriate orders as to whom the property involved should be given.

(3.) In pursuance of this order, a proceeding was taken in Crl. M. P. No. 567/73 by the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class. Kasaragod, and an enquiry under S.517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conducted. At the enquiry both the petitioner and the respondent adduced evidence both oral and documentary.