In Re: Kuppammall vs Unknown on 16 May, 1906

ORDER

Arnold White, C.J.

1. 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 under Section 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.

2. The criminal revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are dismissed.