- (1.) Mangoo Lal has filed this revision against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad dated 8-2-1966 allowing the opposite party's--i.e. the State's--application Under Section 520 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: The Applicant, who is a gold-smith, was prosecuted for the contravention of Rule 126-C Sub-clause (a)(i) and Rule 126(i) of the Defence of India Rules. The case for the prosecution was that on receiving some information against the Applicant, P.W. Onkar Singh, Dy. S.P., along with some Central Excise Officers, raided shop of the Applicant on 16-3-1963 at about 1.40 p.m. and found him manufacturing ornaments of gold weighing Rs. 51.12 of the purity of more than 14 carats, and in possession of gold and unfinished gold ornaments weighing Rs. 23.1 of the purity of more than 14 carats for which he had failed to make a declaration. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise exercising powers Under Rule 126-M of the Defence of India Rules 1962 passed on order confiscating the entire gold and gold ornaments to the Central Government. The Applicant preferred an appeal against that order to the Gold Administrator which was allowed. Thereafter the Collector of Customs and Central Excise took fresh proceedings for confiscation and again passed an order confiscating the seized gold and gold ornaments. The Applicant filed an appeal against that order before the Gold Administrator and the same is still pending before him. Meanwhile on 15-12-1965, the ADM (J), before whom the Applicant's trial for the breach of the aforesaid Rules was going on, acquitted the Applicant of both the offences and also, ordered the gold and the gold ornaments recovered from his possession to be released in his favour after the period of appeal or revision had expired. Thereupon the State filed the application giving rise to this application Under Section 520 Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed.
(3.) On behalf of the Applicant his Learned Counsel Sri B.C. Saxena advanced two contentions in support of this revision. His first contention was that as an application Under Section 520 Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable in the court below, it acted illegally in passing the order in question on it. His second contention was that as the Applicant was acquitted of both the offences by the trial court he was entitled to the return of the gold and gold ornaments in respect of which the offences were allegedly committed. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that while the first contention has no force the second contention is well founded.;