MAHAMMED HUSSAIN Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure 1 which is an order issued under Section 12 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (Act VI of 1898) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Post Master General, Orissa empowering the Superintendent of Post Office, Balasore to realise the sum of Rs. 509.98 P. from the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings with effect from 2-7-1969 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1969 on the file of opposite party No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner was the addressee in respect of a value payable letter (hereinafter referred to as V.P.L.) for an amount of Rs. 509.98 P. It is his case that the said V.P.L. was delivered to him on 13-6-1966 at Goradpur Post Office on payment by him of the amount of Rupees 509.98 P. On 4-9-1969 he was informed by a Police Constable of Bhadrak Police Station that a Distress Warrant was received from the postal authorities by the officer-in-charge, Bhadrak Police Station to realise from him the sum of rupees five hundred and nine and odd. The petitioner made necessary inquiries and came to learn that on receiving a requisition from the Post Master General, Orissa, for realising a sum of Rs. 509.98 P. from the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadrak initiated a proceeding under Section 386, Criminal Procedure Code and transferred it for disposal to Shri B. C. Panda, Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhadrak who registered it as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1969 and that the Magistrate had issued a warrant of attachment to the officer-in-charge Bhadrak Police Station for realisation of the amount from the petitioner. The petitioner further states that on 15-7-66 he had received a letter from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore, asking him to deposit the said amount of Rs. 509.98 being the value indicated in the V.P.L. and the petitioner forthwith replied to the said letter saying that it is only on payment of Rs. 509.98 that the V.P.L. was delivered to him and that therefore he was surprised that a further demand was being made from him. Thereafter, no inquiry whatsoever was made in the matter either by the Superintendent of Post Offices or by any other authority and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to establish that it is only after making the payment that he received the V.P.L.

(3.) The petitioner filed an objection petition before Sri B. C. Panda, Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak (opposite party No. 1) denying his liability to pay the amount and questioning the jurisdiction of the said Court to recover the said amount under the provisions of Section 386, Cr. P. C. opposite party No. 1 having decided the preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction against the petitioner the latter filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge which also was dismissed.