Police lacked authority to take charge of immoveable property; District Magistrate had no jurisdiction. Receiver appointment order set aside.

The court held that under Section 25 of the Police Act, the police lacked authority to take charge of immoveable property. Consequently, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with immoveable property under Section 26 of the Act. The court set aside the order appointing a receiver for the immoveable property, clarifying that the decision did not affect proceedings related to moveable property. Ultimately, the revision application was allowed, and the proceedings concerning the immoveable property were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of police under Section 25 of the Police Act to take charge of immoveable property and the authority of the District Magistrate to deal with immoveable property under Section 26 of the Act.

In this case, the petitioner's wife was murdered while he was in jail for another offense. The police, under Section 25 of the Police Act, took charge of the house and moveable property where the murder occurred. The petitioner requested the property to be handed over to his second wife, leading to a series of legal actions. The key contention was whether the word 'property' in the Act includes immoveable property or is limited to moveable property. The petitioner argued that the police had no authority to take charge of immoveable property, questioning the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to issue a proclamation regarding it under Section 26 of the Act.

The interpretation of the word 'property' in the Act was crucial to determining the extent of police authority. The petitioner argued that the word 'include' in the definition of 'property' should be construed restrictively, limiting it to moveable property only. The court analyzed precedents and legal principles related to the interpretation of the word 'include,' emphasizing that it should not be used to broaden the ordinary meaning of 'property' unnecessarily. The court concluded that in this context, 'property' should be understood to mean moveable property, money, or valuable security, excluding immoveable property.

The court delved into the legislative intent behind the Police Act, emphasizing that empowering the police to take charge of unclaimed immoveable property would not align with the Act's purpose of efficient crime prevention and detection. Reference was made to other state police acts and rules, which further supported the notion that 'property' in the Act pertains only to moveable property. Additionally, a previous judicial observation was cited to reinforce the understanding that the Police Act's provisions do not extend to immoveable property.

Based on the analysis, the court unequivocally held that under Section 25 of the Act, the police lacked the authority to take charge of immoveable property. Consequently, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with immoveable property under Section 26 of the Act. The court set aside the order appointing a receiver for the immoveable property, clarifying that the decision did not affect proceedings related to moveable property. Ultimately, the revision application was allowed, and the proceedings concerning the immoveable property were quashed.

---