KEWAL KRISHEN Vs. SANDAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which falls for determination in this revision petition is whether a Magistrate acting under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to hold an independent judicial inquiry before making delivery of the property seized to the person entitled to the possession thereof.

(2.) THE petitioner lodged a report with Police Station Paccadanga Jammu, on 10 5 -1976 that his cow had gone astray, and was missing. Later on the petitioner lodged another report with the police that his cow had been stolen by the nonapplicant. On this report a case being No: 141 of 1976 war registered by the Police u/s 379 R.P.C. against the nonapplicant and one Ajodhaya Devi. The investigation started and the police seized the Cow from the house of the non -applicant on 22 -5 -1976. On the same day the Cow was handed over by the police to the petitioner on his executing a Superdnama in its favour. As the investigation progressed, statements of witnesses for the rival claimants i. e the petitioner on the one side and the non -applicant and Ajodhya Devi on the other side were recorded. Ultimately the police came to the conclusion that it could not be said as to whom the Cow really belonged. The police, therefore, resized this very cow u/s550 Cr Pr Code and approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu with a prayer for disposal of the seized cow. The Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the parties, and without holding any independent judicial inquiry restored the possession of the cow to the nonapplicant out of whose possession the same had been recovered by the police. The petitioner felt aggrieved and approached the Addl: Sessions in his revisional jurisdiction against the older of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Addl Sessions Judge agreeing with the view taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has now come up in revision to this court against the aforesaid orders of the courts below.

(3.) THE only point argued by Mr. Kotwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to act upon the police report and make over the seized cow to the nonapplicant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate adds the learned counsel, was bound to hold an independent judicial inquiry in to the ownership of the cow before passing any order in respect of us restoration On the contrary Mr. H S. Dogra, the learned counsel for the non -applicant has contented that the orders passed by the two courts below are quite in accordance with law and cannot be interferred with During the course of their arguments, the learned counsel for the parties have made reference to a number of authorities but I would discuss only those authorities which have some sort of bearing on the point at issue in this revision petition. The authorities which I propose to discuss are: i)Mahammad Yusuf Vs. Krishna Mohan Bhuttacharjya AIR 1938 Calcutta 17 ; ii) In re - K -Chinnavadu & others: AIR(29) 1942 Mad. 726 (1); iii) Emperor Vs. Haribandhu Patro. AIR 1948 Patna 180; iv) Khagendra Narayan Dev Vs. Ranee Purnima Devi; AIR 1960 Assam 86 ; v) Enforcement Officer Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and another, 19/1. Cr. L J. 1019; relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and i) Yaru Vs Emperor. AIR 1925 Sind 316, ii) Lakshmicband Rajmal Vs. Gopikisan Balmukund AIR 1936 Bombay 171; and iii) Muneshwar Bu Singh Vs State through Ranghu -nandan Prasad, AIR 1956 All. 199. relied upon by the learned counsel for the nonapplicant.