Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 74 (PAT)

Central Bank Of India v. State Bank Of India

1974-04-02

B.P.JHA

body1974
Judgment 1. The petitioner is the Central Bank of India. It is said that in 1966, 111 bales of cloth were hypothecated with the petitioner by M/s. Binod Textiles and M/s. Bhagwan Das Baijnath of Patna City and they were kept in the godown of the petitioner (Central Bank) at Patna City. On 22nd of December, 1966, it was found that these bales were missing from the godown of the Central Bank. The petitioner lodged an information before the Police. During investigation, these bales in question were recovered from the adjacent godown of the then Bank of Bihar. During investigation. Bank of Bihar claimed that the bales were hypothecated by their constituents other than M/s. Binod Textiles and M/s. Bhagwan Das Baijnath of Patna City. 2. On these facts the police submitted a final report. It is said that a protest petition was also filed against that final report. 3. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint on 23-12-1969 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance in respect of these offences, namely, under Sections 379, 408, 420, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the same date the case was transferred to Shri I.N. Sinha Munsiff Magistrate. Patna City, for disposal. Petitions were filed by the Central Bank of India and the then Bank of Bihar for selling these bales of cloth by auction. By the order of the Court, these bales of cloth were sold in an auction. The sale proceeds in auction of these bales was Rs. 73,457/-. It is said that this amount was deposited in the Government treasury by the direction of the Magistrate. 4. A petition was moved on 30th May, 1969 to the effect that the auction money deposited in the treasury may be transferred to the State Bank of India so that it could earn some interest. Both the parties had agreed to this arrangement. In view of the agreement, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a consent order dated 22nd July, 1969 that Rs. 73,457/- may be deposited with the State Bank of India. In spite of this order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the amount was not deposited in the State Bank of India. Thereafter the Opposite Party filed an application claiming the refund of the whole amount to the State Bank of India. 73,457/- may be deposited with the State Bank of India. In spite of this order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the amount was not deposited in the State Bank of India. Thereafter the Opposite Party filed an application claiming the refund of the whole amount to the State Bank of India. On this petition, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, passed an order on 24th May, 1971 under Sec. 517(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). By this order the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed that the aforesaid amount be paid immediately to the State Bank of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 24th of May, 1971 passed under Sec. 517 of the Code on the ground that this Section does not apply to the facts of this case. Sec. 517(1) of the Code applies to a case where any Criminal Court has concluded an enquiry or trial. In the present case the cognizance was taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 23-12-1969 on the basis of the complaint petition instituted by the complainant-petitioner. The trial is still pending before the transferee Magistrate. In this circumstance the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no authority to pass this order under Sec. 517 of the Code for the simple reason that there is no conclusion of an enquiry or trial in any Criminal Court. In the present case, the trial is pending before the Magistrate and as such the Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in passing this order under Sec. 517 of the Code. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party contends that this is an order after the submission of the report under Sec.173 of the Code. He means to say that this petition has been filed in order to dispose of the money after the conclusion of the investigation held by the police under Chapter XIV of the Code. In my opinion, the word investigation does not occur under S.517(1) of the Code and as such the Magistrate erred in disposing of the money by the order dated 24th of May, 1971. 7. Sec. 517(1) of the Code applies to a case where an enquiry or trial in any Court is concluded. If there is no conclusion of an enquiry or trial in any Criminal Court, this section does not apply. 7. Sec. 517(1) of the Code applies to a case where an enquiry or trial in any Court is concluded. If there is no conclusion of an enquiry or trial in any Criminal Court, this section does not apply. The section provides that the Court will make delivery of the property to the party which is entitled to possession thereof. The Criminal Court can decide as to which person is entitled to possession only after the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. It is for this reason that the section begins "when an enquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded". In the circumstances I hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in passing the impugned order dated 24th of May, 1971 for the simple reason that there was no conclusion of any enquiry or trial. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate decides at this state during pendency of the trial as to who is entitled to possession, it will amount to a decision of the case and the parties will be seriously prejudiced in their trial. In the circumstances. I uphold the order dated 22nd of July, 1969. Let this amount i.e., Rs. 73,457/- be deposited in the State Bank of India in order to earn interest. The trial Court is directed to decide as to who is entitled to possession of this amount after the conclusion of the trial under Sec. 517(1) of the Code. . 8 For these reason, the order of the Magistrate dated 24th of May, 1971, is set aside and the application is allowed. The trial Court is directed to act in accordance with the observations made above.