Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: Ss. 517 & 523-Court,

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 517 & 523-Court, unable to ascertain rightful owner of property, directing same to be kept in Malkhana until title to it established by parties in Civil Court-Order, held, valid-[Muhammad Yusuf v. Krishna Mohan Bhattachariya A I R 1938 Cal: 17 dissented from.]   A person who was sentenced and convicted under section 411 of Penal Code, 1860 and from whose possession a sum of Rs. 4,005 was alleged to have been recovered was acquitted by the Appellate Court, but the Appellate Court while setting aside the conviction ordered that the money should be kept in the Malkhana until the parties established their title before the Civil Court. It was contended that under the law as contained in section 517 and 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in no circum stances, whether under section 517 or section 523 can an order be made for detention of the disputed property in Court custody or in the custody of one of the parties, conditional on a civil suit being instituted, for this might mean detention for an indefinite period, if no such suit was brought.   Held, the order could not be regarded as illegal. If by reason of a disputed claim to possession an order for delivery cannot be made, for the property may not be finally disposed of by destruction or confiscation or otherwise, the Court should not make any order under section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 at all, but leave the parties to their remedy in a civil Court and in such a case it will be open to the Court to deal with the matter under section 523 of the Code and make an order under that section as section 523 equally applies whether there has been or there has not been an inquiry or trial or whether the property has or has not been produced in Court. The very words of section 523 make it clear that if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that he cannot ascertain the identity of the person entitled to the possession of the property, then he has to make such order as he thinks fit respecting the custody and production of such property. That being the law the Appellate Court was acting within the law in passing the order that the money should be…