Rambilas Agarwal v. Stale of M. P. — 1977 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

Short Note : 1. By this order, the connected Criminal Revision No. 208/1976 (Ram Pratap Agrawal v. State of M.P.), 209/1976 (Rambilas Agrawal and another Vs. State of M.P.), 368/1976 (Radheyshyam Agrawal v. State of M.P.), 269/1976 (Ramavatar v. State of M.P.). and 475/1975 (M.P Tribal Co-operative Development Federation v. Rambilas and others) are also disposed of as all these revisions arise out of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 54/1974 directing payment of Rs.26,22,083.5 to the applicants Rambilas Agrawal, Ram Pratap Agrawal, Ramavatar Agrawal and Radheysham Agrawal, out of the sale-proceeds of Sal seeds amounting to Rs.40 lacs which were auctioned as per order of the Supreme Court. The Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, these revisions have been filed by the applicants. Held: The parties were under a wrong impression that an appeal lay against the order of the CJM when only revisions could have been filed Only appeal lay under section 520 against an order for return of property passed at the conclusion of the trial under section 517 of the Code. The mistake has been committed not only by the State but also by one of the applicants Ram Pratap who also preferred an appeal. So the Additional Sessions Judge could have only entertained revisions and could not have passed final order but should have made a reference to this Court under section 438 of the Code. However, since the matter has come before this Court, it is open to this Court to examine the record and satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Courts below and to pass such order as may be necessary in the interest of justice. 2. It is elementary principle that when in a proceeding there is adjudication by the highest Court, the order of the highest Court has to be carried out and not of the intervening Courts unless the highest Court maintains the orders of the Courts below. In this order, the Supreme Court nowhere concurred with the views expressed by the High Court; if that was not so then what was the necessity of giving a direction to the trial Magistrate to make a fresh enquiry. In this order, the Supreme Court nowhere concurred with the views expressed by the High Court; if that was not so then what was the necessity of giving a direction to the trial Magistrate to make a fresh enquiry. The High Court in the revisional orders had already made an assessment and had decided to return all the seized property to these four applicants. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was, therefore, right that if the amounts were to be paid as per the revisional order of this Court then the Supreme Court would have ordered that the amounts be paid in accordance with that order and would not have directed an enquiry afresh. 3. Section 516-A enabled a Magistrate for providing interim custody of the seized goods and section 517 provided for disposal after the inquiry or trial is over. Both the sections applied to property which is produced before the Court or is capable of being produced before the Court. Once a challan is filed and direction is sought about custody of the seized property, there is production of the property before the Court though there may not be actual physical handing over of the property to the Court. Under section 516-A if an offence appears to have been committed, an order under this section can be passed for interim custody pending the conclusion of the inquiry of trial. A person who has not come in possession in a lawful manner of the property seized from him could not be a person entitled to its possession under section 517 or 523 and under section 516-A only interim custody of the seized property could be given. Once perishable articles were auctioned as per order of the Supreme Court, the normal course would have been to keep the sale proceeds in deposit in some scheduled bank. The applicants represented that so much of the sale proceeds to which they were admittedly entitled be paid to them and the prayer not being opposed by the State, the Supreme Court gave the direction that an inquiry be made as to which of the seized properties these applicants were entitled. 4. Accordingly, the revision fails and it is dismissed. The applicants represented that so much of the sale proceeds to which they were admittedly entitled be paid to them and the prayer not being opposed by the State, the Supreme Court gave the direction that an inquiry be made as to which of the seized properties these applicants were entitled. 4. Accordingly, the revision fails and it is dismissed. However, by invoking suo motu powers the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 7-10-1974, is hereby quashed and it is directed that out of the sale proceeds only Rs.2,0 1,787.20 be paid to the applicant Rambilas Agrawal. The remaining claim of Rambilas Agrawal and the claims of other applicants are hereby rejected. 1963 JLJ 155, relied on. Revision dismissed.