PRABHAKAR GOVIND DEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 was prosecuted for commission of theft on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner. He, however, was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambajogai in Regular criminal Case No. 9/1981 by order dated 29-4-1987. In the final order, learned trial Judge directed that the property, which was given to the complainant on his bond should be returned to respondent No. 2 from whom it was attached. In this view of the matter, the petitioner (original complainant) preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 62/1987 under section 454 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The appeal came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Ambajogai on 21-3-1998. The orders in respect of return of the property only are impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, are that the complainant had taken a contract for construction of some structures and fitting of Fly Proof Mesh for the Medical college at Ambajogai. The work was completed in the year 1979. There was a dispute between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner in respect of the accounts. Lateron, there were some disputes between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner sometime in the year 1980. As a result, respondent No. 3 took Fly Proof Mesh and respondent No. 2 took centering material. Being aggrieved, complainant lodged a complaint of theft against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. At the conclusion of the trial, it was found that the respondents 2 and 3 have not committed theft and that the complaint was filed in view of the disputes of civil nature between the parties. In this view of the matter, learned Trial Judge acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and directed that the Fly Proof Mesh be returned to respondent No. 3, from whom it was attached. The centering material was with the respondent No. 2. The bond executed by him was to lapse after the expiry of the appeal period.

(3.) Being aggrieved by order of return of the property, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 62/1987. Learned Appellate Judge found that there is no iota of evidence to show that the property in question belongs to the complainant. Learned Judge has also taken into consideration the receipts produced by the petitioner. It was found that the person, from whom the property was alleged to have been purchased, is not examined. Not only that, there is no description of the property purchased under these receipts. According to learned judge, there was no material on record to show that the petitioner can set up a competing title to the property in question. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal by order dated 21st March, 1998.