JANARDHANA PANICKER Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant in O.S.436/68 on the file of the Munsiff Court,Parappanangadi is the Appellant in this S.A.A calf involved in C.C.136/60 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate,Malappuram was entrusted to the Defendant,presumably as per an order Under Section 514,Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.Though there was a conviction in that case in the trial court,the conviction and sentence were set aside by the appellate court and there was also a direction to give the calf to the accused.As the Defendant did not do so on the motion of the accused,the criminal court directed the Defendant to produce the calf in court.On failure to do so,he was sentenced to a fine of Rs.200,the bond having been forfeited.

(2.) THEREAFTER the accused in the criminal case,who is the Plaintiff in the suit instituted a small cause suit No.9/1963 on the file of the Munsiff Court,Parappanangadi.The suit was filed on 2nd April 1963.Ultimately that court returned the plaint on 29th November 1966 for presentation at the proper forum.On 20th January 1967 the suit is stated to have been filed as an original suit and that is the suit out of which the present S.A.has arisen.

(3.) ON behalf of the Appellant it was argued that there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and therefore the suit is not maintainable.Counsel submitted that under the provisions of Chapter 43(Sections 516A to 525)of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 a Magistrate who tries the case has the power to pass appropriate orders regarding the disposal of the property involved in the case.Therefore,what the Plaintiff ought to have done was to invoke the relevant provisions in that chapter before the criminal court.There is,no doubt,wide powers for the criminal court to compel the production of the property entrusted on bond to be produced when so directed.This does not,however,mean that a person in the position of the Plaintiff is without any remedy in the civil court.The suit has been filed on the allegation that the Plaintiff is the owner of the calf and that he was entitled to have it recovered from the Defendant to whom during the pendency of the criminal proceedings it was entrusted.We are,therefore,of the opinion that the remedy available in Chapter 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not and did not preclude the Plaintiff from seeking relief in a civil court on the grounds available to him.