ISAAC JUDSON Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a bulldozer-operator under the Agricultural Department of Pondicherry. On 1st December, 1971, he was levelling a land in Survey No. 31/1/2 of Sialam Village of Mannadipeth Commune in Villanur Sub Taluk belonging to one Thiru Varada Reddiar of Thirupuvanai. While he was operating the bulldozer, he found the following treasures in the said survey number: -

(2.) AS the finder of the said articles and as enjoined by section 4 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act (VI of 1878) hereinafter referred to as -the Act-, he informed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirupuvanai, and ultimately, the articles were entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police to be sent to the Treasury for safe custody. Thereafter, the Government of Pondicherry, the 1st respondent herein, made a notification in the Official Gazette dated 30th June, 1972, under section 5 (a) of the Act. The owner of the land made a claim over the articles. However, his claim was negatived. His further agitation, including writ proceedings, did not prove fruitful. The articles were declared ownerless under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has also been claiming the article, as the finder of the same under the Act. Admittedly, no further proceedings as contemplated under section 10 onwards under the Act have been prosecuted by the Authorities. The petitioner has been making repeated representations claiming the articles as the finder and ultimately, he received the communication dated 18th July, 1978, from the 2nd respondent in Reference No. 16154/75. C. 2, stating that the department to which the petitioner belongs (Agricultural Department of Pondicherry) should be deemed to be the finder of the treasure since the discovery was made by the petitioner during the performance of his duties. It is this order of the 2nd respondent that is being impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) IN re, Mala Naicker 1 , Sadasiva Aiyar, J., dealt with a case of prosecution under section 20 of the Act where the accused, two coolies working for hire under the eye of their employer turned up a box containing hidden treasure. The treasure was removed by the employer and the accused had no control over it at any time. Yet, the learned Judge held that the accused were the finders within the meaning of the Act and they were liable for non-compliance with the other conditions imposed on them by section 4 of the Act and were properly convicted.