MAHANTH PANDEY Vs. JAINARAIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) At the very outset, I would state the relevant facts leading to these applications. On the 22nd December, 1975, Jainarain Sharma, petitioner in Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17 of 1976 and opposite party No 1 in the two Crimi nal Miscellaneous cases, filed Cr. W. J. C. No. 400 of 1975, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents of that case to return certain seized articles and to restore possession of the house situate in village Koshuk, P. S. Biharsharif, in the district of Nalanda. His case was that in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, between him and one Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, all his movable properties were seized by Mabanth Pandey, the then officer-in-charge, Biharsharif P.S. (Petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1795 of 1977), on the 6th of December, 1974, on the orders of P. K, Sinha, Superintendent of Police, Nalanda (Petitioner-in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1796 of 1977). This, according to him, done under the direction of B. P. N. Shahi, the then. D. I. G. (Transport), Patna, (since dead). Jainarain Sharma further alleged that on the 7th of December, 1974, he filed an application bsfore the District Magistrate, Nalanda, who called for a report from the Sub-divisional Officer and the latter submitted a report which was annexure 2 to Cr. W. J. C. No. 400 ot 1975. It was stated in that report that the police officers were helping Chandeshwar Prasad Singh who was related to (late) B. P. N. Shahi, D. I. G. of Police. It was also stated that on the 6th of December, 1974, Mahanth Pandey, in collusion with P. K. Sinha, dispossessed Jainarain Sharma and seized his properties and that the family members of Jainarain Sharma were seen staying under a tree. When the Sub-divisional Officer asked the Divisional Inspector of Police to maintain status quo, he was told that due to the interference of the Superintendent of Police (P. K. Sinha), he was unable to follow the instructions. A report was stated to have been submitted by the Divisional Inspector of Police on the 9th December, 1974, which was annexure 3 to the aforesaid writ application. In that report also it was stated that Mahanth Pandey was harassing Jainarain Sharma and that his properties had been illegally seized and the family members had been driven away from their house. Jainarain Sharma filed an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for the release of seized articles on the 21st December, 1974. On the 15th of February, 1975, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the goods should be released forthwith but in spite of the said order the goods were not released. Jainarain Sharma then filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for starting a contempt proceeding in which notices were issued. On the 12th of March, 1975, Mahanth Pandey submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, in Case No. 34 MPC of 1974. This was made annexure 7 to the writ application. In annexure 7, it was stated that the articles were seized from the residence of Jainarain Sharma by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, under directions from the D. I. G. (C. I. D.) B. P. N. Shahi. It was further stated that the articles would be returned after obtaining instructions from the proper authority.

(3.) Apart from Mahanth Pandey and P. E. Sinha, petitioners in the present criminal miscellaneous cases, B. P., N. Shahi, Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, Dr. Jugal Narain Verma, Civil Surgeon, Nalanda, and S. B. S. Houra, Munsif Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, were made respondents to the aforesaid writ application. The allegation against Dr. Verma and Shri Houra was that they had purchased some of the seized articles. Dr. Verma and Shri Houra appeared in the case and denied the allegations made against them. Notices were issued to Mahanth Pandey, P. K. Sinha and B. P. N. Shahi, the three police officers, as also to Chandeshwar Prasad Singh In spite of service of the notices, none of them cared to appear or file counter-affidavit in the writ application to deny the allegations made against them. The writ application was ultimately heard by us and by our judgment and order dated the 13th of September, ' 1976, we directed Mahanth Pandey and P. K. Sinha to return the seized articles (in the condition they were on the date of their seizure) of Jainarain Sharma as mentioned in annexure 7 of the writ application within two weeks from that date. It was further directed that if any of the articles had perished or had become incapable of use for the purpose they were required for, Mahanth Pandey and P. K. Sinha should pay the price thereof to Jainarain Sharma. We also directed that Jainarain Sharma be restored forthwith to possession of his house from which he had been ousted. B. P. N. Sahai, D. I. G., had by that time died and as such no order was passed against him. The writ application was thus allowed in the above terms.