9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95 Cr. P. C. 2. Validity of the order passed by the investigating officer under Section 550 Cr. P. C. 3. Alleged circumvention and violation of the previous court order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95 Cr. P. C.: The applicant, a limited company, challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate on 31-10-1958 under Section 95 Cr. P. C. The applicant raised two objections: Firstly, the order was vague due to the use of the word "etc." alongside "letters and parcels," leading to the Post Master withholding money orders intended for the applicant. The court noted that the District Magistrate should have specified clearly what items were required, as the vague wording led to misinterpretation by the postal authorities. Consequently, the portion of the order that was vague and liable to misinterpretation was quashed. Secondly, the applicant contended that the order unlawfully covered future letters and parcels. The court agreed, stating that Section 95 Cr. P. C. applies only to documents, parcels, or things in existence and in the custody of postal or telegraph authorities at the time the order is issued. Therefore, the order was quashed to the extent that it applied to future letters and parcels and anything other than letters and parcels. 2. Validity of the order passed by the investigating officer under Section 550 Cr. P. C.: The applicant also challenged the order issued by the investigating officer, Sri Dwarka Singh, on 24-10-1958 under Section 550 Cr. P. C., which directed the bank not to pay any amount from the applicant's account. The court examined the meaning of "seize" and "property" under Section 550 Cr. P. C. and concluded that the section contemplates the actual physical possession of movable property. The court noted that the investigating officer had not physically seized any property but had merely issued a prohibition to the bank. Since the bank account represented a debt rather than physical money, the court held that Section 550 does not authorize a police officer to prohibit the payment of a debt. Consequently, the order issued by the investigating officer was quashed. 3. Alleged circumvention and violation of the previous court order: The applicant argued that the opposite parties had circumvented and violated the court's previous order dated 16-10-1958. However, the court found no evidence of such violation. The orders in question were independent and issued after the earlier application had been decided. Since no specific directions were disobeyed, the court dismissed this prayer. Conclusion: The court quashed the order passed by the investigating officer on 24-10-1958 under Section 550 Cr. P. C. Additionally, the order passed by the District Magistrate on 31-10-1958 under Section 95 Cr. P. C. was quashed to the extent that it applied to future letters and parcels and anything other than letters and parcels. The court found no violation of the previous court order and dismissed the related prayer.
|
