MOTIRAM CHAYA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 4-10-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag, in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 1984, regarding return of property, whereby the learned Judge has ordered to return the muddamal article viz., three golden pieces to respondent no.2, Sudhakar Potdar after due verification.

(2.) HEARD Mr. P.P.Hudlikar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Miss Seema Sarnaik, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record and proceedings of the case, it is clear that the accused has not claimed the muddamal which he sold in its original form to respondent no.2 who melted the same and from whose possession the same has been seized by the police. Though respondent no.2 was shown as a witness and he was examined, he turned hostile and, therefore, his evidence was rendered useless to the prosecution. However, it has been deposed by respondent no.2 that he has purchased the gold from one lady and he produced receipt for the said purchase, but that is held not proved. The appellant-complainant herein has claimed return of the property seized from respondent no.2. It reveals from the record that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the stolen property was sold to respondent no.2. Moreover, the original accused has not claimed the same. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the stolen property was sold to respondent no.2. The appellate Court has held that the original accused was not responsible for the stolen property. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is the stolen property which has been purchased from the original accused by respondent no.2 from whose possession the same has been seized by the police. Therefore, in this appeal, it is not possible for this Court to direct respondent no.2 to return the muddamal viz. three golden pieces, to the appellant-complainant. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.