Central Bank of India vs State Bank of India

B.P. Jha, J.—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 Baiinath of Patna Citv and they were kept in the podown of the petitioner (Central Bank) at Patna City, On 22nd of December. 1966. it was found that these bales were missinc? from the godown of the Central Bank. The petitioner lodged an information before the Police. During investigation, these bales in auestion were recovered from the adjacent godown of the then Bank of Bihar. During investigation. Bank of Bihar claimed that the bales were hypothecated bv their constituents other than M/s. Binod Textiles and M/s. Bhaewan Das Baiinath of Patna Citv.

On these facts the police submitted a final report. It is said that a protest petition was also filed against that final report.

Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint on 23-12-1969 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance in respect of these offences, namelv. under Sections 379, 408. 420. 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the same date'' the case was transferred to Shri I. N. (Against order of Braiesh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna, D/~ 24-5-1971). Sinha. Munsiff Magistrate. Patna Citv. for disposal. Petitions were filed bv the Central Bank of India and the then Bank of Bihar for selling these bales of cloth by auction. Bv 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 treasurv by the direction of the Magistrate.

A petition was moved on 30th May, 1969 to the effect that the auction money deposited in the treasury mav 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/- mav 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 Citv, passed an order on 24th Mav, 1971 u/s 517(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter refenred to as ''the Code''). By this order the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed that the aforesaid amount b< paid immediately to the State Bank of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 24th of Mav. 1971 Dashed u/s 517 of the Code on the sround that this section does not applv to the facts of this case. Section 517 (1) of the Code applies to a case where any Criminal Court has concluded an enauirv or trial. In the present cace the cognizance was taken bv the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 23-12-1969 on the basis of the complaint, petition instituted bv 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 u/s 517 of the Code for the simple reason that there is no conclusion of an enauirv or trial in anv 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 See. 517 of the Code.

Learned Counsel for the ocrao- 1 -site party contends that this is an order after the submission of the report u/s 173 of the Code. He means to sav 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 word1 ''investigation1 does not occur u/s 517 (1) of he Code and as such the Magistrate erred in disposing of the money bv the order dated 24th of Mav. 1971.

Section 517 (1) of the Code applies to a case where an enauirv or trial in anv Court is concluded. If there is no conclusion of an enquiry or trial in anv Criminal Court, this section does not applv. 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 Jpr this, reason that the section begins "wnen 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 stage 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 thfe circumstances. I uphold the order dated 22nd of Julv. 1969. Let this amount i.e.. Rs. 73,457/- toe 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 u/s 517 fl) of the Code.

For these reasons, the order of the Magistrate dated 24th of Mav. 1971. is set aside and the application is allowed. The trial Court is directed to act in ac-eordance with the observations made above.