BOSE Vs. STATE S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the appellant in C. A. No. 22 of 1985 on the file of Court of Session, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur confirming the order dated 21-12-1984 in Crl. M. P. No. 1210 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.

(2.) A few facts are necessary and they are stated as hereunder : One Veeraraghava Iyengar is a resident of Thiruvidaimarudur. There was a theft in his house on the night of 17-10-1977 and he gave a complaint regarding the same on 18-10-1979 to the police. The subject-matter of the theft are two items namely, M.O. 1, a chain weighing about 35 grams and M.O. 2 a pair of bangles. A charge-sheet was filed in that case against one Kaliamurthi on 1-4-1982. On summons the said accused appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23-4-1982 and after furnishing of records when questioned he pleaded guilty. Therefore, he was found guilty by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457(2) and 309 read with 75, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven months. This judgment was pronounced on 27-6-1983. However at the conclusion of the judgment, the learned Magistrate thought fit not to pass any order regarding the disposal of the case properties and he relegated the matter to a subsequent stage.

(3.) After that, Crl. M. P. No. 1210 of 1982 was taken on file for orders regarding the disposal of the two case properties. It cannot be out of context to mention, here that when the accused Kaliamurthi vas arrested, the case properties were recovered at his instance on 8-3-1982 from one Bose, who is the revision petitioner herein. The statement of the accused Kaliamurthi, which led to the recovery of case properties, was that he gave the case properties to a lady called Thayyalnayagi, who sold them to one Bose, the revision petitioner herein. On the basis of the said statement, recovery has been made from Bose. He contended before the lower Court that he was not the receiver of stolen properties; he had given telegrams to all the higher authorities including the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu; the investigating Officer had compelled him to part with these goods under threat of arrest of not only himself but also his employer and therefore, he bought the two jewels from a neighouring jewellery shop and handed them over to the police. These are the facts on which the revision petitioner claimed for the return of the jewels to him.