YASHPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu has been occasioned in the following circumstances: - The Firm M/S Haveli Ram and Sons represented in these proceedings by Yashpal the accused, being the son of Haveli Ram is a Dealer in Vanaspati Ghee. On a report being received by the City Police Station, Jammu regarding the commission of an offence by the accused under section 9/13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance (XLIII) of 2000/S, a case was registered by the said police Station. Consequently an investigation ensued in the course of which the police seized as many as 307 tins of Vanaspati Ghee from the godowns of the accused. Subsequently on the 1st of June, 1973 the police made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, seeking a direction that the seized ghee may be ordered to be sold through the Super Bazar Jammu. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu on the same day, without issuing notice to the accused, passed an order that the Vanaspati Ghee seized in the case be sold through Super Bazar against valid permits to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner Food and Supplies, Jammu, and the sale proceeds be deposited in the Court. This order left the accused aggrieved. He therefore filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, who made this reference recommending that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 1st June, 1973, be set aside and the Vanaspati Ghee seized by the police in this case may be delivered to the accused.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of Sections 516 -A, 517, 523 and 525 of the Code of Criminal Procedure found that the 1st mentioned two sections had no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as 516 -A applied only to a case in which the property seized by the police has been produced before any Criminal court during any enquiry or trial and 517 would cover a case in which an enquiry or trial in any Criminal Court has been concluded. He however found that sections 523 and 525 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to the facts of the present case. Judging the facts and the circumstances of this case on the touch -stone of Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge found that the order passed by the learned Chief Judge Magistrate was erroneous as according to him the accused in the present case being admittedly the owner of the Ghee could not but be said to be entitled to the possession thereof. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore opined that the person entitled to the possession of the property being very much known, an order of delivery of the seized ghee to the accused was the only regular and legal order which could have been passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate regarding the disposal of the seized property envisaged by Sections 523 and 525 of the Cr. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge held that the disposal otherwise than by delivery of the property to the person entitled to the possession thereof was possible only if the person entitled to the possession of the property was not known and the property was subject to speedy and natural decay or the sale of the property would be for the benefit of the owner. Applying the conditions aforesaid to the facts of the present case, he found that none of the three conditions was satisfied so as to entitle the Magistrate to pass an order of sale of the seized ghee.

(3.) MR . I. K. Kotwal counsel for the petitioner has supported the reference almost on the same grounds as have been relied upon by the Session learned Judge. According to Mr. Kotwal section 532 and 525 of the Cr. P.C. have to govern the disposal of the property seized in the present case and any order passed in disregard of the said provision would not be a legally valid order.