VIVEK AND MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners, whose Criminal Revision No.158/2020 has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity Act), Indore vide its order dated 31.8.2020 whereby the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in criminal case No. 263/2020 has been affirmed. The aforesaid order dated 30.7.2020 has been passed on an application filed by the petitioners for recovery of the amount stolen from their house which is Rs.51 lakhs.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially an F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner No.1 on 3.7.2020 registered as crime No.263/2020 under Section 380 of the IPC stating that from his house a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been stolen by some unidentified person. Counsel has further submitted that when the father of the petitioner No.1 came to know about the said theft, he also searched his valuables and found that a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs, which has been kept in an orange bag, was also missing. Hence, his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 3.7.2020 itself reveals that the aforesaid amount was informed to the police to be stolen and during the course of the investigation a sum of Rs.48,83,960/- has been recovered from the accused -Ramu, who was their ex-servant. Counsel has further submitted that both the courts below have rejected the application of the petitioners for supurdagi holding that, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the petitioners are the sole owner of the aforesaid amount recovered from the accused-Ramu and it is directed that the amount be kept in Fixed Deposit and the interest accrued thereon can be given to the person, who is ultimately found to be entitled for the said amount. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are businessmen and it is not disputed that the amount has been stolen from their house only, which apparent from the statement made by the petitioner No.2 on the same date and consequently the amount has also been recovered at the instance of the accused-Ramu after around ten days i.e. on 13.7.2020. Counsel has also fairly submitted that in the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the J.M.F.C. it is also observed that the accused Ramu is also claiming a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs, out of the aforesaid amount and hence the aforesaid amount may also be deducted from the amount which is to be paid to the petitioners at present and the petitioners shall furnish adequate bank guarantee for the security of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. However, he has submitted that on furnishing the bank guarantee of the amount which is being claimed by the petitioners the same may be released to the petitioners subject to final disposal of the trial by the trial court.