C ARUMUGAN Vs. PARASAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three revisions, though the petitioners are different respondents are the same and since common question arises regarding the disposal of the case properly in C.C. Nos. 11, 10 and 70 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore all the revisions are dealt with together.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the residents of Coimbatore. The petitioners gave complaints to 3rd respondents about the bure glary that took place in their houses on different dates and regarding the theft of valuable jewels. According to the petitioner in Cr1. R.C. No. 146/85, his house was burgled on 20-3-1980 and valuable gold jewels and silver vessels worth about Rs. 34,250 were stolen according to the petitioner in Cr1. R.C. No. 227/85, his house was burgled on 23-6-1980 and gold jewels and silver vessels worth about Rs. 37,875 were stolen away and according to the petitioner in Cr1. R.C. No. 228/85, his house was burgled on 2-3-1980 and gold jewels and silver articles worth about Rs. 1,77,540 were stolen away. On such complaints the police registered separate cases; arrested two persons and charge sheeted them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. On the basis of the confessional statements given by the accused and on identifying the persons to whom the accused sold the stolen jewels the police recovered from the shop of respondents 1 and 2, who are registered gold dealers, certain gold jewels, which are claimed to have been converted into new gold jewels after melting the stolen gold jewels. The accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 457(1) and 380, Indian Penal Code on their own admission. Having regard to the quantity of jewels seized and the quantity of jewels claimed to have lost the learned Magistrate directed the return of the jewels seized to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Magistrate regarding the return of the seized jewels to the petitioners herein, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter regarding the disposal of the case property, to the learned Magistrate with a direction to take evidence as to .the -ownership of the jewels before ordering disposal. The learned Magistrate, after taking evidence again directed the return of the jewels to the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against that order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred C.A. Nos. 227, 226 and 225/84 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the learned Sessions Judge, reversed the order of the learned Magistrate and directed the return of the jewels seized to respondents 1 and 2. Hence the present revisions have been filed by complainants.

(3.) Before the trial Magistrate the 2nd respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 According to him, C.W. 1, Police Inspector and another Inspector came to his shop on 11-2-1980 and seized gold jewels weighing 267/200 grams after making necessary endorsement in G. 12 register marked as Ex.P.1 without assigning any reason. Earlier to that he was compelled by the Sembiam Police to give 470 grams of gold but he refused to give any gold as such. He sent petitions to Chief Minister and Higher Police Official against their conduct. The gold Jewels seized from him were not stolen jewels and he gave petitions to Assistant Collector of Excise about the seizure of gold jewels by the Police. According to C.W. 1, the first accused gave a confessional statement to the effect that he bad sold the gold jewels to Lalith Kumar of Chintadripet 2nd respondent herein through Sundaram Achari that he took Sundaram Achari, examined as C.W. 2 to the shop of the 2nd respondent with a search warrant and on interrogation the 2nd respondent admitted that he purchased gold jewels from C.W. 2 and melted the same and converted into new gold jewels and that he seized the jewels identified by the 2nd respondent in the presence of witnesses. According to C.W.2 Sundaram Achari, in the year 1980 and subsequent years one Kuppuswamy and Loganatban came to his house at T. Nagar along with gold jewels and requested him to sell the same and accordingly he arranged for the sale of gold jewels with various parties and certain gold jewels were sold to 2nd respondent for Rs. 20,000. C.W. 2 further stated that he did not know the jewels sold were all stolen jewels.