SHANTARAM GOVINDRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Single Judge to this Divisional Bench on a point of law, namely, whether under Section 520 Cr. P. C. , the Sessions Court can hear an appeal from an order passed by the magistrate under Section 517 Cr. P. C. , disposing of the property brought before him during the trial of a criminal case. This question has to a considerable measure, been answered in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in Nandu v. Dhasada, 1957 M. P. L. J 67, clarifying the earlier judgment of the Nagpur High Court in Ibrahim v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 33. It appears that the Madhya Pradesh judgment was not placed before the learned Single Judge. Anyway, the reference having been made, it will be convenient to deal with the questions involved.

(2.) IN a criminal case (No. 252 of 1956) before the First Class Magistrate, Kannod, started on an information by Gulabchand (opposite party No. 2) eight persons were on trial and were ultimately acquitted. The judgment itself directed that the articles that had been recovered and produced during the trial, should be returned to the very person from whose possession they had been taken. In a later order, the trial magistrate clarified it by recording that he meant the accused Shantaram, that is, the petitioner before us, ''as the person from whom these articles had been taken", and accordingly, the one to whom they should be delivered. Thereupon, Gulabchand filed a petition before the Sessions Court under Section 520 of the Code describing it as an appeal. It was accordingly numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1958; the learned Sessions Judge held that it was Gulabchand and not Shantaram that was entitled to the articles, and accordingly set aside the magistrate's order and passed his own order in favour of Gulabchand. From this, Shantaram has come up in revision.

(3.) THIS poses three questions, first, whether on a point of law, the Sessions Judge can entertain an appeal under Section 520 Cr. P. C. , from an order of the Magistrate under Section 517 of the Code; secondly, whether, independently of the appellate powers, the Sessions Judge was competent to alter that order and pass his own further orders; and finally, whether, on the merits, the order of the Sessions Judge --call it appellate or call it supervisory -- calls for this Court's interference in revision. The earlier Nagpur decision (supra) was before the Single Bench; but it was not prepared to follow it, and has asked for a reconsideration.