The Sub Inspector, however proceeded on leave on 31 12 1961 for a period of 9 days ending January 8.
Thereafter the companyplainant went up in revision to the High Court of Mysore which was also dismissed by the High Court mainly on the ground that as the articles had number been placed in the custody of the Court, provisions of the CrPC, 1898 hereinafter referred to as the Code had numberapplication.
The original charge sheet submitted by the police against the five accused proceeded to its logical and resulting in companyviction of the accused by the Trial Magistrate and an unsuccessful appeal to the Sessions Judge.
The articles were produced before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who directed the police officer companycerned to retain the articles in his custody until the same were verified and their value was determined by a goldsmith.
1959 the articles seized by the police from the possession of the accused were identified by the companyplainant at a test identification parade and ultimately a charge sheet was submitted against the five accused on February 20.
Towards the end of the year the Sub Inspector was transferred and his successor took charge of the post of Sub Inspector, Haveri, and also verified the articles kept in the trunk on December 23, 1959.
After the Sub Inspector returned from leave he was directed by the Court to produce the articles kept in the custody of the police under the orders of the Court.
Thereafter the articles were kept by the Sub Inspector, Haveri in the Guard Room of the police station in a trunk with a list of the articles and a companyresponding entry in the companycerned Register.
The Court moved the higher authorities for obtaining sanction of the necessary funds for payment of the fees of the goldsmith.
1 to 5 and various pan chnamas evidencing recovery of those articles were prepared.
The companyplainant then filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, which also met with a similar fate.
The High Court in revision, however acquitted the accused on technical grounds.
1959 a number of stolen articles were recovered from accused Nos.
The appellant prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, which having been refused, the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and hence this appeal.
As the accused were number traceable a summary final report was submitted.
This application was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that as the articles never reached the custody of the Court, the companyplainant was number entitled to their restoration.
On February 8.
On February 10.
Dharwar.
