STATE Vs. RAMACHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Orissa questions the correctness of a reversing judgment holding it liable to reimburse cost of articles seized during a criminal proceeding and not returned to the owner.

(2.) A short but interesting point of law relating to claim of protection for sovereign function is involved in this appeal. A resume' of the factual position, which is almost undisputed, may be indicated.

(3.) Forty eight items of utensils were seized from the plaintiffs on 29-2-1969 by the Officer-in-charge of Jarada Police Station in connection with G.R. Case No. 240 of 1969, which was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur. A copy of the seizure list as prepared by the Officer-in-charge was given to the plaintiff. Though the case ended in acquittal, there was an order for confiscation of the properties to the State. An appeal was carried before the Sessions Judge, Berhampur, who by his judgment dated 20-12-1975 directed return of the seized articles to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands only twenty one items of seized articles were returned by the Officer-in-charge of the malkhana, while the balance twenty seven items were not returned. The plaintiff issued a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') to the Collector, Ganjam and due intimation of such notice was given to the Officer-in-charge of the Malkhana, but no steps were taken to return the articles. As the notice issued under S. 80, CPC did not yield any result, the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted. The prayer in the suit was to pass a decree to return the remaining articles seized from the plaintiff, or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- being the value of the articles, and interest at the rate of 9% from 20-12-1975, i.e., the date on which judgment was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, with subsequent interest till the date of payment along with cost of the suit.