MAHAMMAD YUSUF Vs. KRISHNA MOHAN BHATTACHARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a simple case, but there is a good deal of feeling behind it. It is all about the possession of a bull. The petitioner questions the propriety of an order supposed to have been made in respect of it under Section 517, Criminal P.C. The complainant who is a pleader at Serampur missed a bull. A few days later he got information that the animal had been seized and detained by the accused. Accordingly on 20 February 1937, he lodged a complaint before the police. On the same day the police seized a bull from the yard of one Abdul Gani on the identification of the complainant and several other persons. Abdul Gani stated that the animal had been left there by the accused Yusuf. Yusuf questioned the identification, and undertook to produce another bull within the next five days which, if proved to be the complain-ant s, the complainant was to accept, returning the bull seized to the accused. In case the accused failed to produce such an animal or it was found to belong to any other person, the complainant was to let go the bull seized. Meanwhile for five days this animal was to remain in police custody. "To avoid unpleasantness" as he put it, the complainant accepted this arrangement, all the while protesting his ownership of the bull. Apparently the accused failed to keep to his undertaking. On 6 March the police submitted a. final report that it was not possible to come to a definite conclusion regarding: ownership. The case was stated to be one of a mistake of law under Section 411, I.P.C. and in view of the conflicting claims by both parties, the disposal of the bull was left to the decision of the Court.

(2.) The complainant filed a petition before the S. D. O., Serampur, praying for return of the animal to him, and asked that in any case it might be kept in Court or police custody pending decision of the question of ownership by a Civil Court. The accused also filed a petition for restitution of the bull to him. The S. D. O. heard lawyers on both sides, and not being; able to satisfy himself on the conflicting: evidence on both sides, as he put it, that the bull belonged to either party, made an, order that pending the decision of a competent Civil Court, it should remain in the custody of the Court. The complainant was directed to bear the costs of upkeep, the other party having refused to do so on. the ground of poverty. On the original case the order was: "Enter mistake of law, Section 411, I.P.C." Yusuf appealed to the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal on 17 May 1937, but varied the order by directing that the bull should be kept in the custody of the complainant on his furnishing security to the extent of its price. It is against this order that the present Rule is directed. The complainant in due course took the bull into his own custody on executing a security bond for Rs 50. I am informed the animal has been since removed to the pinjrapole at Sodepur where it is being maintained at the complainant's cost. The learned Sessions Judge permitted himself to make certain observations in his order to which strong exception is taken on behalf of the petitioner. This is what he said: In the present case, if the bull is returned to the accused, there is every likelihood of it being slaughtered, the accused being a Mahomedan ...So I think the proper order would be to keep the bull in the custody of the complainant who is a Hindu.

(3.) It is unfortunate this communal element should be introduced, but it is reflected in the complainant's petition asking for return of the bull, in which he stated that he had been led to file the complaint as his religious feelings and the religious feelings of the members of his family and of his relations and neighbours-not to speak of the other respectable Hindu residents and the Hindu public at large-were seriously wounded.