STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This ss a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Partapgarh, with a recommendation that the order passed by the Asst. Collector & Magistrate First Class, Rawat Bhatta, respecting the delivery of 171 Bags of Jawar & 20 Bags of Wheat to Mahavir Jain and Subhash Chander Punjabi upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 and a surety in the like amount may be set aside.

(2.) The ground on which the reference has been made is that the Assitt. Collector & Magistrate 1st Class, Rawatbhatta, was not empowered to exercise the powers of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Begun and that he passed the impugned order in the capacity of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun, inspite of the fact that he was not appointed on the post of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. Advani appearing on behalf of Satya Narain son of Surajmal under the Legal Aid Programme and Dr. S. S Bhandawat for the state. In my opinion the reference is devoid of substance because the impugned order respecting the delivery of 171 Bags of Jwar and 20 Bags of Wheat was passed on 15.1.74 under Sec. 523 old Crimial P.C. Under Sec. 523, the Assistant Collector & Magistrate First Class Rawatbhatta was empowered either to deliver the property seized by the police to a person entitled to its possession or to pass such order as he thought fit respecting its disposal. The seizure of the bags of Jawar and Wheat by the Police was reported in writing on 15.1.75 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Collector & Magistrate First Class Rawatbhatta, who was on that day directed by the District Magistrate Chittorgarh to look after the work of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun, in addition to his own duties. Hence it cannot be said that learned Magistrate First Class Rawat Bhatta had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. All that section 523 old Crimial P.C. requires was that the seizure by any police officer of the property taken under section 51 Crimial P.C. or alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which raised suspicion of commission of any offence must be forthwith reported to a Magistrate. This section no where lays down that the seizure of properly shall be reported to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence which was alleged to have been committed in respect thereof. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Begun no doubt had jurisdiction to try offence alleged to have been committed by the non-petitioner in respect of property seized, but this fact did not take away the jurisdiction of Asstt. Collector & Magistrate First Class Rawat Bhatta to pass an order respecting the delivery or disposal of the property seized in this case, especially when the seizure was reported to him when he was looking after the work of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun, as per direction of the District Magistrate, Chhittorgarh.