# Ka{ranpur_ Lime Works Lid v. Statt of Bihar and Another

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 976
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-03-31
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1951
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J, MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, Ghulam Hasan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ka-ranpur-lime-works-lid-v-statt-of-bihar-and-another-288
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 517-Person prosecuted undff s. 61-E of the Bombay District Police Act (Bombay
Act TV of 1890)-Confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhsPropriety of.
Under s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court is
empowered on the conclusion of an enquiry or trial to make an
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
977
order for the disposal of any property or document produced before
it or in its custody or regarding which an offence appears to have
been committed or which had been used for the commission of any
offf'nce. The power of the court extends to the confiscation of the
property in the custody of the court but it is not in every case in
which the court must necessarily pass an order of confiscation
irrespective of the ci.rcun1stances of the case.
Held, that the confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhs of
rupees was singularly inappropriate in a case like the present where
the prosecution story that the gold in question was smuggled
into
India from Africa was not accepted by the court and the accused
was convicted for an offence under s.
6l~E of the Bombay District
Police Act, 1890, which provides a maximum sentence of three
months and a fine of Rs. 100 and which does not contain any
substantial provision such as the Sea Customs Act imposing the
penalty of confiscation.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuR1smcnoN :
Criminal
Appeal No. 67 of 1951.
Appeal
by special leave from the Judgment and
Order, dated 26th June, 1950, of the High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay (Dixit and
Chainani JJ.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 1949.
N. C. Chatterjee (H. /. Umrigar and S. P. Varma,
with him) for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent.
1954. March 11.
The Judgment of the Court was
<lelivered by
GHULAM
HASAN J.-This. appeal is brought by
special leave from the judgment and order of the High
Court ·Of Judicature at Bombay (Dixit and Chainani
JI.), dated June
26,
1950, whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal
of the State of Bombay, setting
aside the order of acquittal of the appellant passed by
the S~ssions
Judge of Kaira, dated
May 7, 1949, and
restormg the order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed
by
the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Nadiad Prant, dated December 31, 1948.
Tht; appellant, Suleman Issa, who is an inhabitant of
Natal m S~uth Africa
!~ft Durban in August, 1947, by
~ar fo.r ~nd1a t? pay a visit to his native place
Sarsa
Ill D1stnct . Ka1ra where his sister was living with her
husband Ahmahmad Issak.
He was· accompanied by
1954
Suleman.1ssa
v.
·The State of
.Bombay.
1954
Suleman Issa
v.
The State of
Bombay.
Ghulam Hasan J.
978
SUJ:'REME COURT REPORTS
[1954)
Daud Hassam another brother-in-law and both travelled
to Mombasa
by
car.
From Mombasa they
took a
boat on August 30, and reached Colombo on September 1 L
They flew
from Colombo to Madras on September 14, but shipped the car by a steamer. They
stayed in Madras until the steamer arrived on September 20.
The
car was delivered to the appellant on
October
1, after
he had
paid Rs. 2,700
as custom
duty and a cash deposit
of
Rs. 10,000 by way of
security as the appellant intended to take the car back
to
Durban
on
his return.
The party
motored to
Nardana
on
October 7, passing
through Bangalore,
Poona, Nasik and Dhulia.
From there they travelled
by train and reached Sarsa on October 8. The car
was booked in an open truck from Nardana to Anand
where
it
was
taken delivery of and then driven to
Sarsa.
One Ratansing Kalusing Rao!, Senior Police In:.-
pector
of Nadiad town, having noticed· the car bearing no Indian number passing in the town
instructed
policemen to keep a watch.
The appellant was ordered to appear before
the Sub-Inspector on October 12.
On being questioned he stated that his family was the
original inhabitant of Jamnagar State but· for the last
60 years
they
were doing the business of contractors
for purchasing
and
selling
land
in
Durban. His
brother Daud Issa
was, however, servi

## Text

1953
Ka{ranpur_ Lime
Works Lid.
v.
Statt of Bihar
and Another.
Chui.am Hasan J.
1954
March 11,
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
not
the
case.
We think, however,
that though
we decline
to
give a decree for specific performance
of the contract for the short
period, there is no reason
why the Lime Co. should be deprived of compensation.
The plaintiff had prayed for a decree for compensation
in the plaint and the trial court had decreed compensation for the period commencing from 1st April, 1948,
till the date of getting possession of the leasehold property and the amount of compensation was
left to be
ascertained in subsequent proceedings.
As no question
of possession arises in the view that we have taken in
the case. it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the 1st April, 1948, tili the 31st March;
1954.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and direct that the
plaintiff shall be allowed
a decree for compensation
from the 1st April, 1948, to the 31st March, 1954, the
amount of compensation to be ascertained
by the trial
court.
After determining tl1e amount, the trial court
will pass an appropriate decree.
We make no order
as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant : S. p. Varma.
Agent for respondent No. 1 : R. C. Prasad.
Agent for respondent No. 2: B. P. Maheswari.
SULEMAN ISSA
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs,
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 517-Person prosecuted undff s. 61-E of the Bombay District Police Act (Bombay
Act TV of 1890)-Confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhsPropriety of.
Under s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court is
empowered on the conclusion of an enquiry or trial to make an
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
977
order for the disposal of any property or document produced before
it or in its custody or regarding which an offence appears to have
been committed or which had been used for the commission of any
offf'nce. The power of the court extends to the confiscation of the
property in the custody of the court but it is not in every case in
which the court must necessarily pass an order of confiscation
irrespective of the ci.rcun1stances of the case.
Held, that the confiscation of gold worth about 3 lakhs of
rupees was singularly inappropriate in a case like the present where
the prosecution story that the gold in question was smuggled
into
India from Africa was not accepted by the court and the accused
was convicted for an offence under s.
6l~E of the Bombay District
Police Act, 1890, which provides a maximum sentence of three
months and a fine of Rs. 100 and which does not contain any
substantial provision such as the Sea Customs Act imposing the
penalty of confiscation.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuR1smcnoN :
Criminal
Appeal No. 67 of 1951.
Appeal
by special leave from the Judgment and
Order, dated 26th June, 1950, of the High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay (Dixit and
Chainani JJ.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 1949.
N. C. Chatterjee (H. /. Umrigar and S. P. Varma,
with him) for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent.
1954. March 11.
The Judgment of the Court was
<lelivered by
GHULAM
HASAN J.-This. appeal is brought by
special leave from the judgment and order of the High
Court ·Of Judicature at Bombay (Dixit and Chainani
JI.), dated June
26,
1950, whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal
of the State of Bombay, setting
aside the order of acquittal of the appellant passed by
the S~ssions
Judge of Kaira, dated
May 7, 1949, and
restormg the order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed
by
the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Nadiad Prant, dated December 31, 1948.
Tht; appellant, Suleman Issa, who is an inhabitant of
Natal m S~uth Africa
!~ft Durban in August, 1947, by
~ar fo.r ~nd1a t? pay a visit to his native place
Sarsa
Ill D1stnct . Ka1ra where his sister was living with her
husband Ahmahmad Issak.
He was· accompanied by
1954
Suleman.1ssa
v.
·The State of
.Bombay.
1954
Suleman Issa
v.
The State of
Bombay.
Ghulam Hasan J.
978
SUJ:'REME COURT REPORTS
[1954)
Daud Hassam another brother-in-law and both travelled
to Mombasa
by
car.
From Mombasa they
took a
boat on August 30, and reached Colombo on September 1 L
They flew
from Colombo to Madras on September 14, but shipped the car by a steamer. They
stayed in Madras until the steamer arrived on September 20.
The
car was delivered to the appellant on
October
1, after
he had
paid Rs. 2,700
as custom
duty and a cash deposit
of
Rs. 10,000 by way of
security as the appellant intended to take the car back
to
Durban
on
his return.
The party
motored to
Nardana
on
October 7, passing
through Bangalore,
Poona, Nasik and Dhulia.
From there they travelled
by train and reached Sarsa on October 8. The car
was booked in an open truck from Nardana to Anand
where
it
was
taken delivery of and then driven to
Sarsa.
One Ratansing Kalusing Rao!, Senior Police In:.-
pector
of Nadiad town, having noticed· the car bearing no Indian number passing in the town
instructed
policemen to keep a watch.
The appellant was ordered to appear before
the Sub-Inspector on October 12.
On being questioned he stated that his family was the
original inhabitant of Jamnagar State but· for the last
60 years
they
were doing the business of contractors
for purchasing
and
selling
land
in
Durban. His
brother Daud Issa
was, however, serving in Bombay.
He gave details of the journey performed by him and
his companion and
produced passports,
as also the
receipts for paying custom duty and the deposit.
On
October 15, Head Constable Ajit Singh, informed Raol
that some unknown person had come
to the shop of
U marbhai jeweller with a large quantity
of
gold.
Accordingly the police visited
the shop of the jeweller
and his brother (also a jeweller) and came to know
that gold had been given to him
by the appellant to
be melted.
This gold along with some other gold kept
at another place wa& seized by the police.
The police
also took possession of the car.
The entire quantity
of gold seized was 2773! t(llas the value of which is
roughly
estimated at Rs. 3 lakhs. Proceedings under
section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act were instituted
,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
against
the appellant
and
others
on the assumption .
that the wireless set in the car was a transmitter but
they were dropped when it was found otherwise. The
car was thoroughly examined but
nothing incriminating was found.
The appellant was also detained under
the Public Securities Act but was released. Ultimately
on
January 2,
1948,
he along with others was prosecuted on the complaint
of Rao!
for an offence under
section 61 E of the Bombay District Police Act (IV of
1890)
read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 61E says:~
"Whoever has in
his possession or conveys in
any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which
there is reason to believe is stolen property or property
fraudulently obtained, shall. if he fails to account for
such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may
extend to three months or with fine which may
extend to one hundred rupees."
He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced
to a fine of Rs. 100 and the gold· was directed to be
confiscated under section 517 of
the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
The
other accused who were charged
with abctment were acquitted. The Magistrate took
the view that there
was no direct evidence to show
that the accused had committed theft or had oloiained
property fraudulently
but there were in his opinion
circumstances which led to the reasonable belief that
the gold in question was either stolen or was fraudulently
obtained.
The Sessions
Judge held that
although
the possession of the gold was highly suspicious, nevertheless it
did
not constitute sufficient ground for a
reasonable belief
that the property was either stolen or
was fraudulenly obtained.
He accordingly set aside
the conviction
and sentence and ordered the gold to
be
restored
to
the
appellant. The High Court in
appeal by the State
did
not accept the prosecution
story that
the gold was brought into India by the
appellant in his motor-car, but held agreeing with the
Magistrate
that from the circumstances
there was
reason
to
believe
that he was· in possession of gold
which
was
either
stolen
property
or
property
4-m S. C. lndiaf59
1954
Suleman Issa
. v.
The State of
Bombay.
Ghulam Hasan J.
1954
Suleman Issa
v.
, Th~ State of
Bombay.
G!wlam~Hasan J,
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
fraudulently obtained.
The High Court did not accept
the explanation
of
the appellant that
his father had
brought the gold to Sarsa from time to time when he
visited his native place.
As regards the order of
confiscation under section 517, the High Court held that
it
was
not necessary
that the property confiscated
must
be the property in relation to which an offence
appears to have been committed
but it was enough if
the property is
produced before the court.
In this
view the acquittal
was set aside and the order of the
Magistrate was restored.
Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the appellant stated at
the outset that he was
not prepared to concede that
'the appellant's conviction was right but he proceeded
on the assumption that even if it was so, section 517
had no application
to
the case and the court had no
jurisdiction to
pass
the order
of confiscation of the
gold.
He also urged
that in any view of the matter
the order of confiscation was not a proper order in the
circumstances of this case.
Section 517 (1) reads thus:-
"When an inquiry or a trial in any criminal court
is concluded, the court may make such order as it
thinks lit for the disposal (by destruction, confiscation,
or delivery to any person claiming to
be entitled to
possession
ther!'of or otherwise)
of any property or
document
produced before it
or in
its custody or
regarding
which any offence appears
to have been
committed, or which has been used for the commission
of any offence."
The section on a plain reading shows that upon the
conclusion of an inquiry or trial the court is empowered to make an order for disposal of any property or
document produced before it.
or in its cugody,
or regarding which
any offence
appears
to
have
been committed,
or which has been used
for the commission of an
offence.
The section also shows that the power of the court
extends to destruction, confiscation or delivery to any
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
981
person claiming to be entitled to possession of such
property.
Mr. Chatterjee contended that the gold after it was
seized by the Police was sent to the Treasury and was
never produced before the court.
We do not think
that the evidence on this point is clear and definite.
This point does not appeal to have
been raised before
the courts below.
The High Court justified the order
on the ground that the property was produced before
the court and held that it was not necessary to find
before passing
the
order that "any offence appears to
have been committed" in respect of it. It is clear to
us that the property was not one regarding which any
offence appears to have been committed, or which has
been used
for the commission of any offence. Now the
power of the court no doubt extends to confiscation of
property in the custody of the court but it is not every
case in which the court must necessarily pass an order
of confiscation irrespective of 'the circumstances of the
case.
It is possible
to conceive of cases where the
subject matter of the offence may be property which
under the law relating to that offence is liable to be
confiscated as a punishment on conviction.
Assuming
therefore that the court had jurisdiction to pass · an
·order regarding the disposal of the gold, it seems 1to us
that the order of confiscation was not an appropriate
order in the circumstances of this case.
Section 517
contains a general provision for disposal of the property
m
the
circumstances
mentioned in the latter part
of
the
section.
Section 61E by itself
does
not
empower the court to impose the penalty of confiscation and the sentence of imprisonment and fine authorised
by the section
is a nominal sentence for the
obvious reason that the section proceeds upon the
mere belief that the property in possession of the person is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained possession of which is not satisfactorily accounted
for.
It is an offence under the local Police Act and
not under an Act which contains
any substantive
provision such
as the Sea Customs Act impqsing the
penalty of confiscation.
Con1iscation is not the only
mode of disposal under section 517 and is singularly
1954
Sultman Issa
v.
T/,, State of
Bombay.
Ghulam HaJan ].
1954
Suleman Issa
v.
The Stak of
Bombay.
Ghulam Hasan J,
1954
March 12
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954}
inappropriate in a case where the accused is prosecuted
for an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of
3 months and a fine of Rs.
100.
It was
certainly
open to the court to order the property to be delivered
to the person claiming to be entitled to its possession.
Here the gold was found from the possession of the
appellant, and the court was not called upon
to consider any rival claims about its possession. Admittedly
there was no evidence to prove that it was stolen, or
that
it was
fraudulently obtained
and
all that was
found was that there was reason to believe that it was
stolen or fraudulently obtained and that the appellant
failed to account
for its possession to
the satisfaction
of
the court.
The High Court thought that the gold
was smuggled from Africa into India but assuming this
to be so its confiscation
under section 517 upon the
existence of a mere belief required to sustain a conviction
under
section
61E
was palpably harsh and
unreasonable.
We hold, therefore,
that the order of
confiscation of gold cannot be supported.
We according! y set aside the order of confiscation
and direct that the gold seized from the appellant's
possession shall be restored to him.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the respondent : R. H. Dhebar.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
NATH MAL AND MITHA MAL.
lMam CHAND MAHAJAN. C. J., MUKHERJEA, S. R. DAs,
VIVIAN BosE and GHuLAM HASAN JJ.]
Constitution of India,
arts. 19(1)(1) and 31(2)-Raiasthan
Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, cl. 25-Whether ultra vires th<
Constitution.
Held, that the
first
portion of cl. 25 of the Rajasthan
Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, relating to the freezing of stocks
of foodgrains is not void under art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution
because such freezing of stocks of foodgrains is reasonably related