(1.) The propriety of the order for disposal of property passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara under S.452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after conclusion of trial in C. C. 53/83 and the confirmation of the same in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Quilon are the matters to be considered in these two revision petitions.
(2.) MOs I to 3 are gold ornaments. Pw 6 claimed them. MOs 4 to 24 are household utensils. They were claimed by the accused. The complainant in that case was Pw 2. She claimed all the items. The accused, was acquitted. But the Magistrate directed all the items to be given to Pw 2. Against the disposal of MOs 1 to 3, PW 6 filed Crl. R. P. 541 of 1984 and the order of disposal of MOs 4 to 24 was challenged by the accused in Crl. R. P. 536 of 1984.
(3.) PW 2, the complainant is the wife of the accused. Pw 1 is father of PW 2. Accused married PW 2 on 18-3-1981. The case of PWs 1 and 2 is that at the time of marriage 24 sovereigns of ornaments including MOs 1 to 3 were given by PW l to PW 2 and they were entrusted with the accused. MOs 4 to 24 are said to be among the items received by PW 2 either as presents or from her house at the time of marriage. They were also alleged to have been entrusted to the accused. The complainant was taken for delivery to her house. It is said that at that time she carried the ornaments also. But subsequently, she returned to the house of the accused and took back the ornaments along with her. They were alleged to have been entrusted to the accused again. Thereafter, on account of estrangement PW 2 had to leave the residence of the accused on 23-3-1982. It is her case that she was able to take her thali alone and other items including MOs. 1 to 24 were with the accused and he misappropriated them. It was on this allegation that she filed a criminal complaint against the accused for an offence punishable under S.406 of IPC. The accused was acquitted on the finding that the evidence has not established his guilt.