RAJA RAM Vs. AWADH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S.482 Cr. P.C. has been moved under the circumstances mentioned below.

(2.) The three applicants before this Court and the opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram claim themselves to be the nephews of one deceased Smt. Sarju Dei. She was murdered in her house. In respect of that murder, opposite party No. 2 Ram Milan son of opposite party No. 1 was prosecuted but he was acquitted on 22-2-83. It appears that when the Investigating Officer went at the place of occurrence, he also gave the moveable property found in the house in the custody of one of the applicants and his wife. This property had nothing to do with the commission of offence. On 25-10-83 that is more than 8 months after acquittal, opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram moved an application to the Additional Sessions Judge, who decided the case saying that the property be given to him. Therein he said that the house where Smt. Sarju Dei was murdered, was sold to him by Smt. Sarju Dei in her lifetime. The Additional Sessions Judge called for a report from the police. The police did not say as to from whose possession the property was seized; rather report of the police was that house was really sold by Smt. Sarju Dei to opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram. Thereupon the Additional Sessions Judge passed an order that in view of the report of the police, the property that was mentioned in the memo, be given in possession of Awadh Ram, opposite party No. 1. The police went at the spot and it gave moveable property regarding which recovery memo was prepared along with the house in possession of Awadh Ram, opposite party No. 1. Then the applicants filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge saying that the house was not taken in possession by the police and there was no order in respect of it; so the same should not be given in possession of opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this application saying that if police had committed excess the court cannot correct it as it has got no inherent powers and only High Court has inherent powers. It is against this order that the present application has been filed.

(3.) Firstly, it may be pointed out that there does not appear any question of the Additional Sessions Judge having or not having inherent powers. It may not have inherent powers but if its order was being executed and in execution of that order the executing agency had gone beyond the scope of its order, it can ask the executing agency to undo that part and enforce compliance of its order. It could not be refused by the executing agency. After all the executing agency was doing nothing on its behalf. It was purporting to act on behalf of the court and if on wrong interpretation of the order it did some thing which was not authorised to be done by the court, the court can ask the same executing agency to undo that part of which the execution which was done in view of the wrong interpretation. If the court is deprived of such powers of enforcement of proper execution of its order, then unnecessary complications will arise. Every court has power to ensure that its orders are executed properly and to the extent to which it desires to be executed and anything done in excess of it can be undone by the court. Therefore, the view of the Additional Sessions Judge that he could do nothing as he had no inherent powers does not appear to be correct.