In Re: Annapurnabai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the code of criminal procedure (act x of 1872), chapter xxx - property alleged to be stolen--its restoration--order for its disposal by 2nd class magistrate--reversal of the order by the magistrate of the district--the effect of reversal. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. 1. it appears to the court that the provisions of chapter xxx of the code of criminal procedure do not apply to such a case. section 415 and the two succeeding sections contemplate proceedings preliminary to and independent of inquiry. upon general principles where there has been an inquiry or a trial, and the accused person is discharged or acquitted by any criminal court, that court is bound to restore the property, the subject matter of the investigation, into the possession of the person from whom it is taken, unless, as provided for in section 418, such court is of opinion that 'any offence appears to have been committed' regarding it, when such order as appears right for the disposal of the property may be made. it is clear that the 2nd class magistrate did not consider that any offence had been committed in respect of the property in question: therefore, section 419 gave the district magistrate no jurisdiction to interfere. on this ground the court will cancel his order. whatever may have been the merits of the case, the magistrate of the district had no sort of right to assume to himself the functions of a civil court.2. it is to be regretted that the court is unable to afford to the applicant any adequate remedy for the wrong done her.