KULAMANI SWAIN Vs. GHANASHYAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeal and the revision arise out of the same judgment. The informant in the case is the Appellant in the Criminal Appeal and Petitioner in the Criminal Revision. The Respondent was charged under Section 380, Indian Penal Code but he was convicted by the trial Court under Section 406, Indian Penal Code and in the appellate Court his conviction was set aside. The trial Court had ordered that the gold ornaments seized were to be handed over to the informant who is the Appellant in the present appeal and Petitioner in the Criminal Revision. The appellate Court after acquitting the Respondent directed to hand over those gold ornaments to the Respondent. The Criminal Appeal and the Revision are directed against the decision of the appellate Court.

(2.) THE order of acquittal of the Respondent is not challenged inasmuch as he could not have been convicted under Section 406, Indian Penal Code when he was charged for offence under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. This being the position of law, the learned Counsel for the Appellant -Petitioner rightly did not challenge the order of acquittal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for both sides at length I am satisfied that this is a fit case where an enquiry has to be made by the trial Court for its satisfaction as to whom the gold ornaments are to be returned, if the ornaments are still in custody of the Court.