Skip to content


Gurubux Singh Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1955CriLJ653
AppellantGurubux Singh
RespondentState and anr.
Cases ReferredPurshottam Das v. State
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........to pay rent to, daulatram. on 5-8-1953 udhavdas is alleged to have sold one of the engines to gurubux singh and to have delivered possession of the same to him. gurubux singh removed the engine to kekri. when daulatram learnt about this, he lodged a report with the police under section 406, ipc in the course of the investigation, the police took this oil engine in, possession. later they submitted a final report under section 169, criminal p. 0. subsequently guru- bux singh made an application under section 523, criminal p. c, for the return of the oil engine. this application was made before the additional city magistrate, who directed the return of the engine to gurubux singh. the order was set aside in revision on the ground that the additional city magistrate had no jurisdiction.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Nigam, J.C.

1. This is a revision application, against an order passed Under Section 523, Criminal P. C, by the City Magistrate, Ajmer, directing delivery of an oil engine to Daulatram.

2. The facts in brief are that one Udhavdaa is stated to have owned two oil engines which he sold to Arjandas. He is, however, alleged to have retained possession of the engines undeJj an agreement of lease. Arjandas on 29-12-1950 is stated to have sold both the engines to Daulat-ram; Udhavdas agreed to pay rent to, Daulatram. On 5-8-1953 Udhavdas is alleged to have sold one of the engines to Gurubux Singh and to have delivered possession of the same to him. Gurubux Singh removed the engine to Kekri. When Daulatram learnt about this, he lodged a report with the police Under Section 406, IPC In the course of the Investigation, the police took this oil engine in, possession. Later they submitted a final report Under Section 169, Criminal P. 0. Subsequently Guru- bux Singh made an application Under Section 523, Criminal p. C, for the return of the oil engine. This application was made before the Additional City Magistrate, who directed the return of the engine to Gurubux Singh. The order was set aside in revision on the ground that the Additional City Magistrate had no Jurisdiction in the matter. Now the learned City Magistrate has passed an order Under Section 523, Criminal P. C, directing delivery of the engine to Daulatram. Gurubux Singh filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was dismissed as the learned Sessions Judge found no justification for interference and the aggrieved party could file a civil suit to vindicate his right. Now Gurubux Singh has come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for Daulatram and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has referred me to - 'Purshottam Das v. State' : AIR1952All470 . For reasons stated in detail in the ruling referred to and which need not be repeated by me in extenso, it is clear that the Code of Criminal Procedure contains no provision for disposal of property seized by the police during an investigation which results in a final report. It is obvious that such a matter is left for final disposal to the police. The matter should therefore have been dealt with by the police themselves and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to consider and decide the question Under Section 523, Criminal P. C.

4. It follows that as the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 523. Criminal P. C, i.e., the order in question dated 30-3-1954, it must be set aside. The file will be returned to the learned Magistrate so that he may advise the police to deal with the property themselves. It is obvious that it is not the function of the police to enter into and deal with the question of rights and titles and that normally the property should be returned only to the person from whose custody it has been taken possession of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //