M. Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) BY this application under Sec, 482. CrPC the applicant accused person has prayed that the order dated 31-10-1980 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, may be quashed.
(2.) IT would appear that a case of theft is pending in the aforesaid court against the applicant. IT related to theft of bullock, which was recovered. The complainant opposite party moved an application and the Magistrate then passed an order that Station Officer, Sukhpura may seize the bull from the custody of Vijai Shanker and produce it before the Magistrate on 27-11-1980. The opposite party no. 2 then moved another application on 29-10-1980 praying that the bull be given in his Supurdigi and the Magistrate there passed the impugned order dated 31-10-1980 that the bull be given in the Supurdigi of the applicant subject to his executing a personal bond for Rs. 1000/-. From a perusal of the order on the margins of the application of opposite party no. 2 (Annexure (3), it would appear that the Magistrate simply directed that notice b given to the A. P. O. and the application be then put up on 31-10-1980. Any notice to the present applicant was not given, The first point urged is that in absence of production of the bull any order for its Supurdigi could not be passed in view of language of Sec. 451 CrPC. That argument has no force. The controversy stands resolved by a Division Bench decision of this Court that during investigation also and before the article is produced before court, it can pass orders concerning the Supardigi. The second point urged before me is that the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard before any orders could be passed. I have already referred to the marginal note; on the second application of opposite party No. 2 (Annexure (3) It is evident from the same that no notice was given to the applicant and the order for giving the bull in the supurdigi of the opposite party no. 2, namely, the complainant, was passed behind the back of the applicant. This would amount to a denial of justice and abuse of the process of law. It would all the more be so, when earlier a much later date i. e. 27-11-1980 was fixed. I, therefore, hold that the order dated 31-10-1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained and must be set aside and quashed.
(3.) THE application under Section 482, CrPC, is allowed. THE order dated 31-10-1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed and the Magistrate, wherever the case is pending, is directed to afford an opportunity to the applicant also before disposing of the application of opposite party no. 2 (Annexure (3) or any other subsequent application with regard to the supurdigi of the bull. Application allowed.;