BHUVNCSHWAR Vs. RAGHUNANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision preferred by the accused persons against the lower appellate Courts order passed under Section 454 Criminal Procedure Code, directing the delivery of the seized paddy to the Complainant Raghunandan.

(2.) Four Khasra numbers of Mouza Devada, with a total area of about 34 acres, along with standing crops, were attached in the proceedings under section 145 of the Code and were handed over to Ramkripal on Supradnama. It was alleged that, after this, the present applicants-accused forcibly got reaped the crops of these attached lands; and, therefore, Ramkripal lodged the F.I.R. against the present applicants-accused for commission of the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. Investigation followed and some quantity of dhan was seized by the police investigating agency from different places, as per the seizure memos Exs. P-i to P-4 which are on record of the then Cr. Case No. 294 of 78 which was instituted against the present applicants-accused in the matter of commission of the offence of theft and was given on Supradnama to one Supraddar Raghunandan. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, had acquitted the applicants-accused of the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and had ordered the delivery of the seized dhan by the Supraddar Raghunandan to the applicants-accused. In the matter of the order of, acquittal and the further order regarding delivery of seized dhan to the applicants-accused, the trial Court had found that there was no proof, whatsoever, that the seized dhan was the crop of the particular fields which had been attached and then given to Ramkripal on Supradnama in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. Raghunandan, being aggrieved with the said order, preferred the appeal before .the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the trial Courts order and ordered instead that the dhan seized in the particular criminal case, be returned the Supraddar Raghunandan and not to the applicants-accused. Hence now, the applicants-accused present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants-accused has urged that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court to set aside the trial Courts Order in the matter of return of the seized property i.e. the dhan. It is urged in this connection that when the accused persons are acquitted of any offence, the property seized in that connection has to be returned to the ownership of the complainant or anybody else. It is also urged that there is no proof on record that the seized paddy or dhan was of the ownership of the complainant Ramkripal.