J P SAROOGI Vs. JAMAL AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa dated 8th November, 1978, by which he refused the prayer of the petitioner for recurn of E.C.G machine (Ext. I) for the safe custody during the tria.

(2.) The petitioner J. P. Sarsogi is at present posted as the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Dumka, district Santhal Parganas. In the year 1977, he was posed at Saharsa. On the night of 26th June, 1977, a theft took place in his house in course of which a number of articles including the E. C. G machine were stolen away. First information against unknown thieves was lodged at the police station on 27th June, 1977 by the petitioner. The police, on completion of invstigation, submitted final reports as no clue with regard to the thieves was available although the case of theft was true In the meantime the petitioner wrote to Messrs. Seimens India Limi ed, Calcutta, which had once repaired his E.C.G. machine, about the theft of the machine and requested the Company to inform him of the same if and when it was brought to the Company for repair etc. Some time thereafter the Company wrote to the petitioner that the E.C.G. machine, which was said to have been stolen, had been given to the Company for repair. The police re-opened the case and the stolen E.C.G. machine was seized from Messrs. Seimen India Limited, Calcutta. On an application made by the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, by his order dated 28th December, 1978, allowed the machine to be given to the informant-petitioner for safe custody during the pendency of the case on his executing an indemnity bond of Rs. 10,000-, and on undertaking being given to keep the machine in proper order and to produce it before the Court as and when rejuired. Thus the petitioner received the machine for safe custody during inquiry and trial.

(3.) The hearing of the case was taken up on 5th November, 1979, and the said machine was produced in court and was marked material, Exhibit I. The petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate for return of the machine to him. The learned Magistrate by his order, dated 6th November, 1979, refused the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, this application.