AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 121 wordsArnold White, C.J.—I think the Magistrate was right. It was conceded by the vakil for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 517,
Criminal Procedure Code, did not apply. His contention was that he was entitled to an order u/s 523. It seems to me that on the facts of the
present case, Section 523 has no application. There is no finding, and there is nothing to show, that the property in question belongs to the
petitioner. As I read the section, there is no obligation on the Magistrate to hold an enquiry simply for the purpose of deciding whether the property
claimed is the property of the petitioner.
The criminal revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are dismissed.