DONTHULA RAJALINGAM Vs. VANGALA VENKATA RAMA CHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revision cases are filed aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 14 and 18 of 1991 dismissing the accused appeal No. 14 of 1991 and allowing the defacto complainant's appeal No.18 of 1991 and directing that M.Os.l to 3 i.e. cash of Rs.40,000/- (M.O.I), gold chain (M.O.2) and gold gundlu with eenalu (M.O.3) to be returned to the complainant.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner in Cr.R.C.229/93 who is the accused-appellant in Crl.Appeal 14/91 has been charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Nizamabad town for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code stating that on the night of 23-3-1988 at about 8-45 p.m. he gained entrance into the house of the defacto complainant and committed theft of M.Os. 1 to 3. The trial court disposed the case on merits by its judgment dated 21-1-1991 acquitting the accused for the offences alleged and confiscating M.Os.1 to 3 to the State. Aggrieved by the confiscation order the complainant filed Crl.Appeal 18/91 contending that M.Os.1 to 3 belong to him and therefore the property order may be set aside and M.Os.1 to 3 returned to him. The accused also filed Criminal Appeal No. 14/91 before the appellate court stating that he was kept in illegal detention and on being harassed by police he arranged for M.Os. 1 to 3 and handed over to police and since it is the case of the prosecution that M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered from him they should have been returned to him instead of confiscating the same to State.

(3.) The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant directing the lower court to return M.Os. 1 to 3 to the complainant after expiry of revision time. The lower appellate court further dismissed the appeal filed by the accused holding that the accused is not entitled for M.Os.1 to 3. Therefore these two revision cases are filed by the accused separately for allowing the appeal of the complainant and dismissing his appeal by the lower appellate court. However, for the sake of convenience the two revision cases are disposed of by a common order.