PUTHIYADATHU KAVU DEVASWOM TEMPLE COMMITTEE Vs. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A theft of various valuable belonging to the Puthiyedathkavu Devaswom Temple, Taliparamba, represented by the present revision petitioner, took place on 10.11.1983. Gold ornaments including a gold crown totally weighing 427 grams and silver articles weighing 4.122 Kilograms were stolen. Subsequently two persons were arrested and based on the confession statement given by the second accused part of the stolen articles as ingots were recovered from the Manohar Jewellery, of which the first respondent is a Partner. After trial, though both the accused were convicted by the Trial Court, this Court in a Criminal Revision acquitted the second accused.

(2.) The first respondent had filed C.M.P. No. 2620 of 1990 on 11.7.1985 before the Trial Court seeking return of the ingots. Though the petition was filed invoking S.451 of the Cr.P.C. it was ultimately disposed of only by the transferee court after conclusion of the trial and at that time the power available with the Court was under S.452 only. The Trial Court, after considering the question of return of MOs. 39 and 40, which were the ingots weighing 221 grams of gold and 1.388 kgs. of silver, allegedly made from part of the stolen articles received by the present first respondent from the second accused, ordered release of the material objects to the petitioner herein. The Sessions Court, Thalasserry in Crl.A.No. 149 of 1993, however, set aside the said order and directed return of the said ingots to the present first respondent. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the said latter order.

(3.) Shri. T.R. Raman Pillai, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that in the matter of return of stolen articles the inhibition contained in S.25 of the Indian Evidence Act and in S.162 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable and that such statements could very well be looked into and acted upon. According to him, the confession statement given by the second accused and the case diary statement of the present first respondent given before the Investigating Officer would clearly show that MOs. 39 and 40 were actually made out of the stolen articles that the second accused sold to the first respondent and in that perspective the impugned order is unjustified. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on case law to show that normally the articles recovered from a person should, on completion of the trial, be returned to himself. He also relied on the books of accounts maintained by the first respondent to show that actually there was a forceful seizure of MOs. 39 and 40 from the business place of the first respondent and that there was in fact no admission at all by him that they were part of the stolen property. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of PW 3, who claims that he actually melted certain ornaments available in the business place of the first respondent to make MOs. 39 and 40 ingots according to the dictates of the Investigating Officer and out of compulsion.