KORUPULU APPALANIDU Vs. VAKARAMAMURTHY
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a revision petition against an order of the District Magistrate directing the return of 23 bundies of jute or the value thereof to respondents 1 to 4 under the following circumstances.
(2.) On a report by the two petitioners, the S. H. O. Vizinagaram, charge-sheeted the respondents for an offence under S. 379, Penal Code. The case against the respondents was that they stole 23 bundies of jute which the two petitioners soaked in a tank known as Juvvi tank. The defence was that the jute bundies did not belong to the complainant but were the property of the accused (respondents). The Sub-Magistrate who tried the case accepted the prosecution version, rejected the defence and convicted them under S. 379 and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 25.00 each. An appeal was filed before the District Magistrate, Vishakapatnam against the conviction. Subsequently the trial Magistrate passed an order under S. 517, Criminal P. C., directing the return of the jute to the complainant.Next day, the accused filed an application before the trial Court to vacate this order bringing to the notice of the Court that an appeal had been filed against the conviction and sentence and that no order could be passed pending disposal thereof. The Magistrate cancelled his previous order. Later on the appellate Magistrate set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused, and also directed that the jute bundies should be recovered from P. Ws. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) and returned to the accused and that if the jute was not available for any reason their value which was fixed at Rs. 500.00 should be recovered from the petitioners, kept in Court till revision time was over and then paid to the accused.
(3.) The respondents sought to enforce this order of the appellate Magistrate before the Sub-Magistrate who originally tried the case. On notice, the petitioners raised an objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order as the properties were already disposed of. As this objection was disallowed, the present revision petition is filed. In support of this, Mr. Rama Rao has put forward three contentions : (i) It was not competent for the District Magistrate to set aside the order passed originally by the Magistrate under S. 517, Cr. P. C., when no separative appeal has been filed against that order by the accused. (ii) Since the property was delivered to the petitioners without any bond as required under S. 517;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.