RAM KHALAWAN AHIR Vs. TULSI TELINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and Beni Madhab Karmakar to show cause why the order passed by Mr. Khan on the 4 of May, 1923, and the order passed by Mr. Ali on the 26 of April, 1924, should not be revised and such other order passed as to this Court might seem fit and proper.

(2.) The allegations In the petition may be briefly stated. A theft was committed in the house of the petitioner on the 24 of April, 1922, when jewellery and cash to the value of about Rs. 18,000 were stolen. On the 19 of July the shop of Beni Madhab Karmakar was searched and a quantity of gold ornaments was discovered. Upon certain statements made by him the Opposite party Tulsi Telini, who was the accused in the case and is said to have been at the time an occupant of a room in the petitioner's house, was arrested on a charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. She was however, not tried under that section but under Section 54-A of the Calcutta Police Act; and, by his judgment of the 2nd of December, 1922, the learned Magistrate convicted her and sentenced her to three months rigorous imprisonment. At that time no order was made by the learned Magistrate as to the disposal of the property recovered which he directed to be kept in the malikhana.

(3.) On the 6 of February, Tulsi applied to this Court for a Rule against her conviction and sentence; but her application was refused and she subsequently applied on the 23 of February for bail pending her application in England for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. That application was also rejected. Then on the 4 of May, upon the arrival of the record in the Magistrate's Court, the petitioner applied under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a return of the property to him. The learned Magistrate made an order upon the petition "To D.C." by which I understand him to mean to the Deputy Commissioner of Police "fur disposal." The matter remained pending before the Deputy Commissioner until the 22 November, when upon a further application by the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner sent the application to the Public Prosecutor for advice and on the 27 of that month the Public Prosecutor advised that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dispose of the matter which was one either for the Magistrate or for this Court to decide. Then, a somewhat mysterious order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. To Girija Babu." We are told that Girija Babu is an Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department who had enquired into the case. Then, on the 10h of March the petitioner moved this Court and the learned Judges who heard the application told him to make another application before the learned Magistrate inviting him to exercise his powers under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereupon, on the 18 of March, the petitioner moved the Magistrate. The Magistrate, Mr. Ali, on the 26 of April, disposed of the petition in these terms: Mr. Khan had already recorded an order regarding the disposal of the property. I cannot hold an enquiry in the matter. Application rejected.