SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Partapgarh with a recommendation that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector & Magistrate First Class, Rawat Bhatta, respecting the delivery of 439 bags of Jowar to Satya Narain upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 and a surety in the like amount may be set aside.

(2.) The grounds on which the reference has been made is that the Asstt. Collector & Magistrate 1st Class, Rawat Bhatta 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, 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 under the Legal Aid Programme, and Dr. S. S. Bhar.dawat for the State. In my opinion the reference is devoid of substance because the impugned order respecting the delivery of Jowar was passed on 15. 1. 74 under Sec. 523 old Cr. P. C. Under Sec. 523 the Asstt. Collector & Magistrate First Class Rawat Bhatta 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 Jowar by the Police was reported in writing on 15-1-74 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Collector & Magistrate First Class Rawat Bhatta 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 the learned Magistrate First Class Rawat Bhatta had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. All that Sec. 523 Old Cr. P. C. requires was that the seizure by any police officer of the property taken under section 51 Cr. 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 property shall be reported to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence which was alleged to have been committed in respect there of. 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 directions of the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh.