PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the first accused in C. C. 20/1951 on the file of the First Glass Magistrate, Trichur to revise the orders of both the subordinate courts rejecting an application filed by him for return to him of the value of the goods seized and confiscated in the original C. C. 20/1951. In C. G. 20/1951, the first accused, along with 5 others, was tried for offences under Sections 7 (2), 8 and 17 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act -- Central Act XXIV/1946. The case for the prosecution then was that these accused were transporting, without permit on 13-11-1950 about 150 bags of dried tapioca chips from a place called Kanjirappilly in the erstwhile Cochin State to Pannimedu in Pollachi Taluk. It is not necessary to go into the merits of that case, because there is no dispute that the present petitioner, who was the first accused and also accused 2 and 4 were convicted under the sections mentioned earlier. It is also evident from the records that along with the conviction of these per-sons, the trial magistrate also ordered the 150 bags of topioca to be sold and also further directed that the proceeds are to be confiscated to the State,

(2.) The first accused who is the petitioner before me, was found guilty of the offences with which he was charged and as such, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. This conviction was challenged by him before the learned Sessions Judge, Trichur, in Crl. Appeal 43/1953. The learned Sessions Judge who heard that appeal, set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the first accused. the petitioner before me, on the ground: "As there is no reliable evidence to show that the tapioca belonged to the 1st accused or at least that the transport of tapioca was at the instance of the appellant, the conviction cannot be maintained." Therefore, it will be seen from this reasoning of the learned Judge that the petitioner herein got his conviction quashed and got an acquittal an the ground that the prosecution was not able to prove by reliable evidence that the tapioca which is the subject-matter of the occurrence belonged to the first accused. It is also clear that so far as the order of confiscation passed by the trial magistrate along with the conviction of the accused is concerned, that was not interfered with by the appellate court. The petitioner made an attempt to have the order of confiscation challenged by filing Crl. Appeal No. 3/1954 before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, quite rightly dismissed that appeal on 30-1-,1954 as not maintainable. There was another attempt to get the order of confiscation either reviewed or set aside by the second accused, who was the driver, filing CM. R. P. 1/54 before the learned Sessions judge of Trichur. This again met with the same fate and it was dismissed on 25-6-1954 on the ground that the second accused is not a person aggrieved by the order of confiscation. It may be mentioned at this stage tbat in disposing of Crl. Appeal 3/1954, the learned Sessions Judge made certain observations in favour of the present petitioner which admittedly he has not cared or chosen to take advantage of up to now.

(3.) After all these, the present petitioner filed the application, out of which this Crl. Revision Petition arises, before the Special First Class Magistrate for paying over to him the amount realised by the confiscated tapioca articles. The learned Special First Class Magistrate, Trichur as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur have rejected this application filed by the petitioner. It is against these orders that the present Crl. Revision Petition has been filed.