E RAMULA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by A-1 against the order of Addl. Sessions Court, Eluru, in Crl. A. No. 144/88 rejecting return of money recovered from him while acquitting him of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. by allowing his appeal.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are : One Subba Rao, examined as P.W. 1, made a complaint to the police alleging that his money, to a tune of Rs. 33,000/-, was committed theft of on 4-5-85 at about 8-30 p.m. when it was kept in a bag left to the cycle of P.W.1. The police during the course of investigation arrested A-2 on 4-6-85 and recovered Rs. 1,200/- from him in pursuance of a confessional statement made by him. In his confessional statement, A-2 involved A-1 and A-3. Therefore, A-1 was also arrested and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from him. Thereafter all the three accused were tried for the offence under Sec. 411 I.P.C. The trail Court convicted all the three accused under Sec. 411 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for one year, while ordering return of the money recovered to P.W. 1. The matter was carried in appeal before the Sessions Court. The contention before the lower appellate Court is that the money recovered from A-1 represents the sale-proceeds of his scooter and that the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 411 I.P.C., are not made out warranting conviction and sentence of A-l. It was further submitted, that the accused was not only entitled to the acquittal but also to return of the money recovered from him. However, the lower appellate Court while acquitting the accused, directed return of the money of Rs. 11,200,- to P.W. 1 mainly on the ground that A-l could not prove that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- recovered from him represents the sale-proceeds of the scooter and that no claim for return of the money was made in the Grounds of Appeal. In support of its order of acquittal, the lower appellate court assigned the reason "the accused No. 1 appellant herein is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has not established the offence....".

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the lower appellate Court found that the prosecution could not establish the offence under Sec. 411 I.P.C., against the petitioner A-1 , it ought to have directed return of the money recovered from him to the petitioner A-1 alone.