D D NATH Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge Jammu dated 13. 8. 1965 whereby he has dismissed a revision petition presented by the petitioner in that case.

(2.) IT appears that in a complaint under Section 407 Cr. P. C. an application was made before the trial Court of the A. D. M. Jammu for disposal of 106 bales of wool which were entrusted in Delhi on 16th March 1964 by the complainant to the accused for transport to Srinagar and the consignee was the Government Woollen Mills Srinagar. According to the complainant the goods instead of being carried to Srinagar and delivered to the consignee were retained at Jammu by the accused against the express provisions of the contract. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE wool was seized by the Court. An application was moved before the trial Court that the Government Woollen Mills Srinagar were pressing for the wool. The wool may be sent to the Government Woollen Mills and the sale proceeds thereof disposed of. The trial Court ordered the goods to be sent to the Government Woollen Mills Srinagar and further directed that the amount of the price of the goods shall be retained in the Court and payment of the same 'shall be made after the conclusion of the case to any party in proportion as it will be found entitled to. ' A security bond was further taken from the complainant for Rs. 20,000 because the accused had made an application that they were entitled to Rs. 20,000 as demurrage from the complainant for non-lifting of the goods to Jammu. Against this order of demanding a security bond from the complainant, the accused went in revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel, however, did not press this petition in revision which was consequently dismissed on 13. 9. 1965. Hence, the order for deposit of security to the extent of Rs. 20,000 became absolute. The complainant, however, has come up in revision to this Court against the original order of the ADM dated 9th August 65 and his case is that the money which would be realized as the price of the wool from the Government Woollen Mills should have been paid to the complainant and not retained in the Court till the disposal of the case. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant states that there is no dispute about the ownership of these bales of wool and therefore, their price should be returned to the complainant and not kept in the Court till the disposal of the case, more so when the complainant has already been ordered to deposit a security bond for Rs. 20,000 which is the claim of the accused as demurrage in this case.