BAIDYANATH MURMU Vs. BHAGWAT MURMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the informant in a criminal case in which the even accused were put upon trial before -& Munsif Magistrate of Pakur for offences punishable under Sa. 143 and 380 of the Penal Code. They were acquitted on 31-8.1967. There was no appeal against it by the prosecution. On 25 10 1967 the accused, who were acquitted, made an application to the trial court to direct the Officer-in-charge, Pakuria police station, to return the buffaloes to the acquitted accused Surendra Murmu from whose possession the police had seized the same and given to one Shib Marandi to be kept in his custody till the disposal of the case. The learned Munsif Magistrate by his order dated 15-11-1967 allowed the prayer. The present application is directed against the said order.

(2.) The matter was first heard by a single Judge of this Court who by his order dated the 6th of August, 1969, referred it to a Division Bench as a Bench' decision of this Could in the case of Deopujan Mahto v. Kukur Ahir A.I.R. 1940 Pat 198 was sought to be distinguished on behalf of the opposite party.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S. R. Ghosal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. Mahendra Prasad Pandey for the opposite party. The contention of Mr. Ghosal is that the impugned order is illegal as it was passed without a notice to the petitioner. who was interested in the disposal of the property, namely, the buffaloes. learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in A.I.R.. 1940 Fat 198. On the other band, Mr. Pandey has tried to distinguish it on the ground that nobody was heard in Deopujan's case A.I.R. 1940 Pat 198, neither the Crown (King Emperor) nor the complainant. In the present case Mr. Pandey's contention is that the Court Sub-Inspector, obviously representing the State, was heard and therefore, Deopujan'a case A.I.R. 1940 Pat 198 has no application to the facts of this case. We are unable to accepts this contention as corrects. It is true that Section 517 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 does not in terms require the issue of any notice and if an order regarding disposal of property is passed simultaneously with the judgment in the criminal case, it is not in dispute that a situate notice to the parties to show cause, in respect of the disposal of the property, is not necessary. But when an application is made after some lapse of time, as it bas been so made in the present case, then it is only proper on general principles of la that the party which is affected by the proposed order should have notice of the application. The relevant observations in Deopujan'a case A.I.R. 1940 Pat) 98 might be usefully reproduced here: