PRABHALA RADHAKRISHNAMURTY Vs. VEMURI SUBBARAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition on behalf of the complainant, Prabhala Radhakrishnamurty, challenges the propriety of the order dated 13th October 1956 of the Sub-Magistrate, Mangalagiri, whereby he ordered the lorry seized under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code to be delivered to Basavaiah, the 3rd respondent herein, on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties for a like sum and on condition that the lorry would be produced before the Court whenever required during the course of the trial. This order purported to be under Section 516-A though he has by some inadvertence referred to Section 516(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The principal point canvassed before me on behalf of the petitioner was that the learned Sub Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction since inquiry or trial of the offence charged had not commenced when the impugned order was passed.

(3.) The facts are short and are not in dispute. The petitioner by a complaint commenced criminal proceedings against Vemuri Subbarao and Vemuri Ramarao that they had committed a theft of a lorry belonging to him. After the complaint was filed, he applied for a search warrant under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code. In the result of the search that followed the engine affixed to the lorry belonging to Basavaiah and also several other parts were seized at the instance of the complainant. Basavaiah filed an objection petition in reply to which the petitioner filed a counter.