MUTYALU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Addl. I Class Magistrate, Tenali is obviously wrong. Under Sec. 523 Cr. P. G. which is the section which applies to the facts of the case, the normal rule is that when property has been seized from a person by the Police under Sec. 51 and no charge sheet is filed against him, the property Should be returned to him, unless he disowns any interest therein. There is nothing in this case" to indicate that the petitioners before me repudiated their title to the property which was taken from them. No charge-sheet having been filed against them by the Police, it was the clear duty of the Magistrate to have directed that the property seized by them should be returned to the petitioners from whom it was admittedly seized. In any case, I can see no justification whatsoever for the Magistrate's direction that the property should be corecated to the Government. Under Sec. 524 Crl. P. C. when the property cannot be delivered to any person known to be entitled to the possession .thereof, it may be sold and the proceeds may be placed at the disposal of the Gvernment. But that does not amount to confiscation of the property; it would still be open to any person legally entitled to such property to claim the sale proceeds in the hands of the Government by instituting a suit in a Civil Court and establishing his claim thereto. I am satisfied that there is no reason why in the present case the petitioners should be deprived of the right to have restored to their possession the paddy which was seized from them and in respect of which no offence was attempted to be made out against them. So far as the counter-petitioners are concerned their title to this property cannot be the subject-matter of an investigation by a Magistrate. The proper forum for the adjudication of such a right is the Civil Court.

(2.) IN the result, I set aside the order of the Addl. I Class Magistrate, Tenali and direct the Government to return the sale proceeds to the petitioners. The Government will not do so however, before the 6th of February, 1956. Meanwhile it is open to the counter petitioners, if they are so advised to institute a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction claiming the money in the hands of the Government. Subject to the result of any such suit if instituted the petitioners are entitled to the sum. This Criminal Miscella neous petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Additional I Class Magistrate is set aside.