S.K.KAUL, J. - (1.) THIS Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court who doubted the correctness of the proposition of law laid down by B. M. Lall, J. in the case of Bis -hambhar Rai v. State : AIR1953All199 in respect of interpretation of the language of the explanation appended to Section 517 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) BEFORE entering into the question referred to this Bench we would first of all look to the facts giving rise to this reference. Ram Chandra prosecuted opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 for an offence punishable Under Section 395, I. P. C. for forcibly cutting and looting of certain crops. The police seized the crop from the threshing floor of opposite parties 2 to 11 and entrusted the same in the custody of Ram Chandra himself. Opposite Parties 2 to 11 stood trial Under Section 395 and ultimately the trial resulted in their acquittal. The trial Court, however, did not make an order about disposal of the seized crop. Thereafter opposite parties 2 to 11 moved an application either for delivery of the crops so seized and handed over to the custody of Ram Chandra or return of money equivalent to the value of the crops. Their case was that the crops belonged to them, that these were sold by them, that these were harvested by them and finally these were seized from their possession. On notice being issued to Ram Chandra he contested this claim holding himself to be owner of the crops. His further contention was that no order regarding delivery of possession or return of money equivalent to the value of the crops could be made until and unless the matter was decided by a competent civil court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the crops having been seized from the possession of opposite parties 2 to .11 they had a right to get back the crop. He, however, further found that since the seized property was not in existence arid the value of the crops had not been ascertained by the police he On the evidence adduced before him found that the value of the crops came to Rs. 1720/ - and having arrived on that finding he ordered Ram Chandra either to return the original crop if the same existed or to hand over equal quantity of the crop or to pay Rs. 1720A representing the value of the crops appropriated by him.
(3.) AGGRIEVED from that order Ram Chandra presented a revision to this Court. The learned single Judge had no difficulty in coming to this conclusion that although in the trial of the case Under Section 395 no orders were passed by that court yet it was open to that court, later on when moved by the accused to pass an appropriate order Under Section 517(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned single Judge also did not find any difficulty in holding that it the crops still existed or were liable to be returned the same could be easily returned to Opposite Parties 2 to 11 from whose possession they were seized. Doubting the dicta laid down by B. M. Lall. J. in the case noted above the learned single Judge gave his own views to the effect that the language of explanation appended to Section 517 was wide enough to give ample power to the criminal court not only to trace the property and Order its restoration if existed in its original shape or form but it had also the power to lay its hand on money equivalent not necessarily the same money. Having taken that View he thought it fit to get the matter finally decided by a larger Bench and hence this Revision has come to us for decision.;