B VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, the mention of a few facts leading to this petition becomes necessary. C.C. No. 32 of 1959 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, was filed against one Abdul Rahiman alleging that he as the driver and owner of lorry A.P.Q,. 283 committed an offence relating to the contravention of clause (2) of the Andhra Charcoal Transport Control Order, 1956, read with section 11 (1) of the Andhra Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 (V of 1956). It was alleged that Abdul Rahiman transported -104 bags of charcoal from Loddipalli to the firewood depot of Premji Bhai at Kurnool on 29th October, 1958. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused as in his view, the prosecution failed to prove that that lorry was driven by the accused on the night in question. The learned Magistrate also found that the defence story that these 104 bags of charcoal were sold by D.W. 3 (petitioner herein ) to Premji Bhai (D.W. 2) cannot be believed as the learned Magistrate found the evidence of these two witnesses to be untrustworthy. The Magistrate was clearly of the opinion that the accused has not contravened clause (2) of the Andhra Charcoal Transport Control Order, 1956. As to the charcoal bags, the learned Magistrate, however, felt that since they were transported without a valid permit, the sale proceeds of the said charcoal which came to Rs. 430 should be confiscated to the State.

(2.) This order of the learned Magistrate was questioned in Crl.M.P. No. 124 of 1959 before the Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The learned Sessions Judge has opined that the Magistrate has not specified in the provision of law under which confiscation has been ordered. The learned Sessions Judge found that the order is not certainly under section 11 (1) of the Andhra Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 ; but justified the order of confiscation as one which the learned Magistrate could have passed under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code. Venkata Reddi, who was examined as D.W. 3 in the said C.C. 32 of 1959, filed this application under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code and questioned the order of the learned Sessions Judge upholding the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, confiscating to the State the sum of Rs. 430 which is the sale proceeds of the said 104 charcoal bags.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor argued supporting the order of confiscation and relied upon section 11 (1) of Act V of 1956 and contended that even if the accused is acquitted of the offence charged with, still the order of confiscation could be said to have been made validly as such an order is sustainable by virtue of the latter portion of sub-section (1) of section 11 of Act V of 1956. That section reads thus :