ANWAR DAR Vs. GULA DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge Anantnag dated 26.8 71 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Anantnag.

(2.) . In a case under section 379 R P. C. almond were seized on an application made by the complainant under section 96 Cr. P. C. These almonds form the subject matter of theft according to the complainant. The Magistrate letter on returned almonds to the accused on their executing suprdnama. The order was passed during the pendency of the complaint. Against the order the complainant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge Anantnag who without considering the legal aspect of the matter dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) . In my opinion the almonds in respect of which the complainant has made an allegation that they were stolen by the accused should not have been returned to the accused persons during the pendency of the complaint. Under Section 517 Cr. P. C. it is only when an enquiry or trial is concluded that the court may make an order for the disposal of the property by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. This order is to be passed at the final stage. No doubt a criminal court has power to pass an interim order regarding the custody of the property in respect of which there is an allegation that it has been used in the commission of an offence but to return the stolen property to the accused at the interim stage when the trial or the accused is going on does not appear to be a sound proposition. For the foregoing reasons I would, therefore, set abide the order of the court below and direct that the property shall continue to remain in the Custody of the court till the case is finally concluded. The court may entrust the property seized on Supurdnama to Some third person.