KALIRAM SATNAMI Vs. MOHARDAS SATNAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT /Plaintiff Mohardas Satnami brought an action against the Appellant/Defendant Kaliram Satnami for recovery of eight gold lurkies weighing about two totals or in lieu thereof its price Rs. 3200/ -.

(2.) IN short, Plaintiff's case was that on 3 -2 -1979 theft was committed in his house. Therefore, he lodged a report at the Police Station Patan, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. During investigation the said gold lurkies were seized from the possession of the Appellant Kaliram and the same were identified by Mohardas Satnami. Thereupon, the Appellant was charge -sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 354 and 380, J. P. C. After investigation, the police presented challan against the Appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar on 18 -4 -74 and the Appellant was tried for the offence vide Criminal Case No. 1 173/77. However, his trial ended in his acquittal by order dated 16 -7 -79 and the trial Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 passed the order for the return of the said seized eight gold lurkies to the Appellant after two months from the date of passing of the order of acquittal i. e., 16 -7 -79. Against the order of acquittal the State of Madhya Pradesh filed a Misc. Criminal Case for seeking leave to appeal before this Court and the Respondent Mohardas invoking the provisions of Section 454, Cr. P. C. preferred appeal against the return of eight gold lurkies to the Appellant/Defendant who was accused in the said criminal case. By order dated 16 -1 -80 leave to appeal was refused by this Court and the appeal preferred by the Respondent Mohardas was also withdrawn on 11 -8 -80, as not pressed. Appellant Kaliram, therefore, on 5 -5 -80 applied for return of the eight seized gold lurkies and cash Rs. 39/ -. The learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10 of 80 on the same day i. e., 5 -5 -80, directed return of the said lurkies to the Appellant Kaliram.

(3.) THE Appellant resisted the suit on the ground inter alia that he had not committed any offence punishable within the meaning of Section 454, 380 I. P. C. He further pleaded that the seized article -8 gold lurkies belonged to him On account of third degree method meted to him by the police, he handed over the said eight lurkies to the police.