EMPEROR Vs. HARIBANDHU PATRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., made by the learned Additional. District Magistrate, Ganjam, in the following circumstances. A first information report was lodged by the driver of one B. Kantaya of the Krishna Motor Service before the police of Parlakemedi, alleging that the bus O.R.G. 3 which had been entrusted by B. Kantaya to him for plying was taken away by certain persons. The police on investigation found that the persons complained against were claiming to have contributed some portion of the money with which B. Kantaya purchased the bus and that as B. Kantaya did not give them their share of the profits they took away the bus. Hence the police submitted a final report, stating that it was a case of civil nature.

(2.) On 8-11-1946, during the pendency of the proceedings the Magistrate handed the bus over to Kantaya, upon his executing a bend for Rs. 15,000, but on 25th November after the police final report the Magistrate ordered that the bus should be made over to the persons from whom the police had seized it, that is to say, to the accused.

(3.) The learned District Magistrate recommends that this order be set aside. He points out that under Section 523, Criminal P.C., property which is seized by the police is to be returned, not to the person from whom it was seized but to the person found entitled to the possession thereof. In the present ease, he says, there was no dispute as to the person entitled to the possession of the bus, as the bus had been registered in the name of B. Kantaya who also held the route permit and had been plying the service bus. The Magistrate had not come to any definite Ending that the accused persons were these entitled to possession. The District Magistrate considered, therefore, that in the circumstances as the act of the accused was nothing but an act of violence under a colour of a civil claim the bus should have been left with B. Kantaya to whom it was originally made over.