Criminal Conviction and Civil Claim Regarding Property Recovery
Article 8. Theft pursuant to Section 334 of the Criminal Code and requesting the court order the defendant, whose property was stolen, to be returned to the injured party. It appeared that the property of the injured party, valued at 50,000 baht, was stolen by Mr. . The judge, Mr. K., and subsequently transferred prior to issuing the judgment. The judge proceeded to hear the case alone, as Head of the Court was on official duty in Bangkok, leaving only Judge Mr. X. present. Consequently, Mr. X. presented the case file, resulting in a conviction for imprisonment and an order for the defendant to return or pay the property to the injured party. This matter is a criminal case with elements of civil claims. It was under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. When it was found that the Head Judge was not performing his duties, only Judge Mr. X. remained at that court, therefore he acted as a substitute on an ad hoc basis pursuant to Section 9, paragraph 3. He had the authority under Section 11(4)(1) to review the case file if he deemed it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Mr. X. signed the case file. The request for the return or payment of the property is a civil claim, involving a property value of 50,000 baht. Judge Mr. X. had sole authority to consider the case, and therefore Mr. X. lacked the authority.