RAM ABHILAKH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dacoity was committed on the night between the 14th and 15th of October, 1953, in village Hariharpur, police station Mawai, district Barabanki at the house of one Jagpal. In connection Awith the dacoity Ram Naresh, Sheo Prasad, Ram Abhilakh, Inder Singh, Palli Singh, Mahadeo, Raj Karan and Ram Pratap were charged with an offence under Section 396 Indian Penal Code. Ram Abhilakh, Ma-hadeo, Raj Karan and Ram Pratap were further charged with an offence under Section 412, Indian Penal Code in respect of several articles alleged to have been recovered from their possession. The eight items of property alleged to have been recovered from the two applicants Ram Pratap and Ram Abhilakh are detailed in paragraph 5 of this miscellaneous application. The learned Temporary Sessions Judge, Barabanki delivered judgment in the two connected trials on 3-11-1955. Then he acquitted Ram Naresh, Palli Singh, Inder Singh, Sheo Prasad, Raj Karan, Ram Abhilakh and Ram Pratap of all the charges levelled against them. Mahadeo was found guilty and was sentenced to transportation for life. As regards the material exhibits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the material exhibits be retained in custody till either the accused or Jagpal established their ownership in a Court of law. Mahadeo preferred an appeal and his conviction was also set aside in Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 1955 by this Court on January 21, 1958.

(2.) Ram Abhilakh and Ram Pratap had been acquitted. They were, therefore, not interested in the result of the appeal preferred by Mahadeo. Neither Jagpal nor the two applicants filed any suit for declaration of their right. After the disposal of the appeal by this Court, the two applicants before us presented an application to the Court of the Temporary Sessions Judge, Earabanki on 11th February, 1958, praying that the property recovered from the possession of the applicants be returned and delivered to them. The learned Temporary Sessions Judge disposed of this application on 26th February, 1958, and held that an order had already been passed at the time of the judgment and he saw no reason to depart from that order. The-learned Judge accordingly rejected the application.

(3.) Now Ram Abhilakh and Ram Pratap have preferred the present application u^der Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure urging that the applicants are entitled to the possession of the ornaments recovered from their possession and that they are even prepared to execute a bond with or without sureties engaging themselves to restore the property to the Court if and when so directed.