MANI RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition against an order of confiscation of a certain amount of mica under Section 517, Criminal P.C. The petitioners Mani Ram and Babulall Ram of village Chandowari, Police Station Ganwan, District Hazaribagh, are holders of mica miner's license No. 45(G) on Jharnapahari mine. On 14 November 1935 the Inspector of Mica Accounts visited their godown and on verification of the stock of mica kept therein found that 2 maunds and 6 seers of crude mica had not been entered in the stock book but had been kept in a separate room not ordinarily used for storing mica. He seized the 2 maunds and 6 seers of mica and on the basis of his report the licensees were prosecuted under Section 17(2)(a), Bihar and Orissa Mica Act. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 90 each or in default to suffer one month's simple imprisonment by the Subdivisional Officer of Giridih. After the disposal of the case the licensees asked for the return of the mica which had been taken into custody but there was opposition by the Inspector of Mica Accounts who asked for its confiscation. The learned Subdivisional Officer ordered the mica to be returned holding that he had no right to confiscate it under any provision of the Mica Act. The Inspector of Mica Accounts then asked for a review of the said order. The learned Subdivisional Officer sent the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh as he felt he could not review his own order. The learned Deputy Commissioner then passed the order against which the petitioners have moved this Court. The petition of complaint filed by the Inspector of Mica Accounts dated 3 February 1936 requested the Subdivisional Officer of Giridih to summon the petitioners under Section 17(2)(a), Mica Act, to take their trial according to law. Along with the petition of complaint a copy of the inspection note of the Inspector of Mica Accounts was also attached. The learned Deputy Commissioner while dealing with the question whether the mica in question could be dealt with under Section 517, Criminal P.C., says: In my opinion the learned Subdivisional Magistrate was wrong in holding that the mica seized by the Inspector of Mica Accounts could be dealt with only under the Bihar and Orissa Mica Act. Section 517, Criminal P.C., refers to the disposal of property regarding which any offence has been committed and certainly applies to the present case which is covered by the phrase regarding which any offence appears to have been committed occurring in Section 517, Criminal P.C., One of the methods of disposal in Sec. 517, Criminal P.C., is confiscation. The mica in question can therefore be confiscated under that section.

(2.) The questions that we have to consider in this case are, firstly, whether the mica confiscated was a property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed when the complaint was under Section 17(2)(a) and the conviction was also under that section, and secondly, whether it was a fit case in which confiscation should be ordered. Section 17(2)(a) of the Mica Act, runs as follows: Any licensee or registered proprietor who fails to keep any account required to be kept by Section 10 or keeps an account which does not contain the particulars required by the said section or which is false in any material particular shall on conviction by a Magistrate of the First class be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

(3.) In order to understand the nature of the complaint made, one will have to refer to the report of the Inspector of Mica Accounts who incorporated his report as a part of his complaint. From the examination of the accused it appears that a reference to this report was made because the learned Magistrate who examined the accused put the following question: The question was "Do you accept the statement contained in the report of the Inspector?" It also appears that his chief complaint was that the accounts were not properly kept and he gives various instances in which sometimes the stock in the godown was less than what was shown in the accounts and sometimes it was in excess. The report is dated 14th November 1935. On that date he found: