NAGAPPAN KONAN Vs. RAMARAM PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadamarudur in C.C. No. 202 of 1928 on his file discharged three persons of the offence of theft and subsequently passed an order that the property involved, namely three calves, should be returned to them. A petition praying for the revision of the order of discharge was presented by the complainant to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore and shortly afterwards he presented a supplementary petition praying that the property should be handed over to him. THE Additional District Magistrate passed an order declining to interfere either with the order of discharge or with the directions of the lower Court regarding the property. THE complainant then applied to the High Court to revise both portions of the order. THE order of discharge has been disposed of in Cr. R.C. 158 of 1929, the petition having been dismissed and I have now to deal with the order with regard to the property.

(2.) THE contention raised is that the Additional District Magistrate was not a Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision, such as is contemplated in Section 520, Criminal P.C., and accordingly that he was not competent to deal with the order which the Sub-Magistrate had passed under Section 517, disposing of the property whether by confirming it or by reversing it. I have been referred to the Full Bench case reported in Maria Pillai V/s. Ramanathan Chettiar [1928] M.W.N. 557 (F.B.), where the construction of Section 520, has been considered. An examination of that case will however show that the learned Judges divided the cases which might arise for consideration into two classes: firstly those in which an order with regard to property comes before a Court which has at the same time under its consideration an appeal, a reference or an application for revision as regards the main case itself, and secondly those in which an application to that Court to modify or reverse the order relating to property is made independently of any such appeal, reference or revision; and the judgments are concerned with the question how the latter class of cases may be dealt with, the view bring clearly expressed that no difficulty arises in cases of the first class. THE order subsequently passed by Reilly, J. in the case reported in Maria Pillai V/s. Gopalakrishna Iyer [1928] M.W.N. 633 was upon an application with regard to property filed independently of any appeal or revisional application. THEse cases accordingly do not support the petitioner's contention, but in fact run contrary to it; and I think there can be no question that, since an Additional District Magistrate is invested by the Local Government by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by Section 10 (2), Criminal P.C., with the powers of a Court of revision, he is competent when disposing of a case by virtue of those powers to make any consequential order as to the disposal of the property. That is to follow the plain terms of Section 520, Criminal P.C., and no authority has been shown me for taking a different view. I can find no reason therefore to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate as contrary to law and I dismiss this criminal revision petition.