PADMA CHANDRIAH Vs. PAMJWOMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.W. 7 is the petitioner from whom one imitation stone and 12 diamonds were recovered in connection with Criminal Case No. 35/5/56. The Additional District Munsif and First Class Magistrate of Secunderabad, in his order discharging the accused, observes that P.W. 8 (the complainant) and P.W. 9 recognised these articles as belonging to the complainant and from this he deduces that the ownership of these diamonds and stones and another lock was with P.W. 8 and also concludes that they were stolen. He seeks to construe the decision in Muthiah Muthirian v. Vairaperumal Muthirian, AIR 1954 Mad 214, as enjoining upon him to give possession of these articles to the complainant in the case. The revision application filed by P.W. 7 before the District Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the orders of the learned Munsif Magistrate was dismissed thereby upholding the reasons given, by the trial Court for departing from the general principle that the property produced before a Court regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which had been used for the commission of any offence should be returned to the person from whom possession of them was taken.

(2.) In this application, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that no case has been made out for departing from the normal rule of ordering the return of the property to the person from whom they were taken. The facts of this case reveal that the possession of the articles were not taken from the accused. So it cannot be said that the dispute relating to the return of the property here is between the complainant and the accused only. On the other hand, P.W. 7, the purchaser, has acquired possession and admittedly the properties were recovered from him.

(3.) If there is any dispute in regard to the return of the articles, it is between the complainant and the purchaser. In my view, when such circumstances as these exist, the decision in AIR 1954 Mad 214, will not apply. The following observation therein at page 215 bears out my view.