PASUMARTI RAMNLU Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After acquitting the accused of the offence of dacoity in respect of ground-nut bags, the Sessions Judge ordered that the sale proceeds of 15 bags of ground-nut, seized from his possession be paid to P.W. 12 and the balance of the sale proceeds be confiscated to the Government. State's appeal against the acquittal was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 18th November, 1969. However on 21st November, 1969 the High Court ordered that the sale proceeds of (all the) 44 bags of ground-nut be paid to the complainant P.W. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court, P.W. 12 filed this petition which is now under consideration.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (P.W. 12) contended that the learned Sessions Judge observed in his judgment that the ground-nut bags seized from the possession of P.W. 12 were unidentifiable and rightly ordered that the sale proceeds of 15 bags of ground-nut be paid to P.W. 12. Before the High Court, the fact that 15 bags of ground-nut were seized from the possession of P.W. 12, was not stated and the High Court without issuing notice to and hearing P.W. 12, reversed the order of the Sessions Judge regarding the disposal of property, with regard to which the offence of dacoity was alleged to have been committed and ordered return of the entire sale proceeds to the complainant P.W. 11. The order passed by the High Court under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code.was vitiated in law and it should therefore be modified. In support of the above contentions, the learned Counsel Sri Narasimhacharya, relied upcn the decision in State Bank of Jnd'a v. Rajendra Kumar. (1968) 1 S.C.J. 822: 0969) M.L.J. (Cr1.) 442 : (1969) 2 S.C R. 216:AI.R. 1969 S.C. 401.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for P.W. 11 both contended that the order passed by the High Court may be a wrong order, but however wrong it may be, the High Court now cannot review its own order. In support of those arguments, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Full Bench cf this Court in The Public Prosecutor v. Devireddy Nagi Reddy, (1962) 2 An.W.R. 290 : (1962) M.L.J. (Crl.). 588 : (1962) 2 A.L T. 128. and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 2 S.C.J 374 : (1963) M.L.J. (Crl.) 473: A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1208.