RAMSAGAR YADAV Vs. MYUNUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1933 a certain plot of land was settled with the petitioners by the landlord for one year. Although the settlement was for this limited period, it appears that the petitioner did not give up possession on the expiry of the period. In 1938; the land-lord purported to settle the land with the opposite party. The present proceedings date from a letter which the landlord wrote to the police informing them that the petitioners were cutting the unripe paddy growing on the plot. On receipt of this information, the Sub-Inspector went to the. plot in question and found both parties there and that the crop had been cut. In view of the allegations in the landlord's letter to the police it would appear that the crop had been cut by the petitioners.

(2.) The police reported the matter to the Magistrate apprehending that there might be a breach of the peace and suggesting that proceedings should be taken under Section 144, Criminal P.C. As the crop had already been cut, the Magistrate disagreed with the police suggestion that there might be a breach of the peace. He ordered that the paddy should be returned to the person from whom it had been recovered. The police thereupon reported that they had not recovered the paddy from any of the parties, meaning that they had merely taken it from the land on which it had been lying after having been cut. They therefore asked for the Magistrate's direction. The Magistrate then observed that it was not possible to pass an order about the disposal of the property without coming to a definite conclusion about its possession. He considered that, having refused to take proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P.C., he was not competent to investigate the question as to who was in possession of the paddy, He therefore directed the police to retain it in their custody and if it was liable to decay, to sell it, and deposit the money in safe custody pending orders from a proper Court.

(3.) It is against that order that the petitioners have moved this Court. The Secs.of the Criminal Procedure Code empowering a police officer to seize property are Secs.51, 54, 165, 166 and 550. The last mentioned Section is in these terms: Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. It is clear that neither Section 51 nor Section 54 nor Section 165 nor Section 166 applied to the facts of this case. On the other hand the landlord had written to the police, informing them that the petitioners were cutting unripe paddy on land which did not belong to them. This allegation, if true, was an allegation that the petitioners were committing mischief and therefore would have entitled the officer to seize the paddy under Section 550, Criminal P.C. As there appears to be no other authority for the seizure of the paddy in this case, it must be presumed that it was in the exercise of the powers under this Section that the police acted.