BHAGAWAN SHRIRAM AHIRRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) This writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the propriety of the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below rejecting the petitioner's application under section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of muddemal gold and silver articles. The petitioner is the complainant in a case which is registered as Crime No.5 of 2007 on 10.01.2007 for offences punishable under sections 454, 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown persons. The petitioner alleged that his jewelery shop was burgled between night of 10 th and 11 th January, 2007. He lodged complaint immediately after the incident. The police investigated into the crime and arrested about six accused and recovered from the accused gold ingots weighing 100 gm and silver ingots weighing 6 kg. It is prosecution case that these muddemal articles are made by melting the ornaments and the articles that were stolen from the shop of the petitioner. Pending the criminal case, the petitioner moved application under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for return of gold and silver ingots on Supurtnama. Learned Magistrate refused to oblige him on the ground that what was stolen from the shop were ornaments and what was sought to be returned, are different articles. Even learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere and held that since the articles are different than what was stolen, the application should fail. In both the Courts, the prosecution clearly mentioned that the gold and silver ingots are made from the ornaments and articles stolen from the petitioner's shop. Even the accused admittedly did not object to the return of ingots. At the Trial Court, the Investigation Officer clearly mentioned that he had no objection for return of the muddemal articles.