T NARASINGH MURTY Vs. G N GAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/04/1998 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1994 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati reversing the order dated 29/01/1994 passed by the Subordinate Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No. 24 of 1988 directing to return the gold nuggets to the petitioners from whom the same were seized, the petitioners have approached this Court. As both the revisions arise out of a common judgment and were heard analogously, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the cases are that petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 in Criminal Revision No. 297 of 1998 and the sole petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 263 of 1998 (who is also O.P. No. 2 in Crl. Revision No. 297/98) were accused in G.R. Case No. 24 of 1988 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Parlakhemundi. The said petitioners are goldsmith by profession and it is alleged that they had committed an offence under S. 411, I.P.C. On the basis of an F.I.R. dated 2/02/1988, lodged by the Maharaja of Parlakhemundi opposite party No. 1 alleging that some unknown persons entered into the Gantaghar and committed burglary of ornaments from the temple situated inside the palace between April, 1987 and January, 1988, G.R. Case No. 24 of 1988 was initiated. According to the prosecution case, the gold ornaments which were stolen, were sold to the petitioners for which they faced trial for the charge under S. 411, I.P.C. After trial, by the judgment dated 29/01/1994, all the petitioners were acquitted as the prosecution totally failed to substantiate the charge. The learned J.M.F.C. also directed to return the gold nuggets seized from the premises of the petitioners. The informant preferred an appeal against the order directing return of the gold nuggets seized from the petitioners to them whereas the order acquitting the petitioners from the charge under S. 411, I.P.C. was not challenged and became final. The lower appellate Court set aside the portion of the order directing to return the gold nuggets to the petitioners and directed that the same be returned to the informant-appellant. The said appellate order, as stated above, is impugned in these revisions.

(3.) Mr. P.V. Ramdas, learned counsel for the petitioners forcefully submitted that there is absolutely no iota of evidence connecting the gold nuggets with ornaments alleged to have been stolen from the Palace of Maharaja. It is also submitted that being goldsmith the petitioners are authorised/licence holders to keep gold nuggets out of which they prepare ornaments as per the order and cater their customers. In course of trial no evidence worth the name was adduced connecting gold nuggets with the crime nor the same was identified by the informant. Mr. Ramdas further submitted that no evidence was also adduced in course of trial to show that the ornaments stolen were converted to gold nuggets. On the basis of such submission, Mr. Ramdas urged that as the gold nuggets were seized from the possession of the petitioners who are goldsmiths and are authorised to possess gold nuggets as part of their business, in consonance with S. 452, Cr. P.C., on the acquittal of the petitioners, the Court below had rightly directed to return the gold nuggets to the petitioners who are otherwise entitled to claim possession thereof. It is also forcefully submitted that the appellate Court while exercising power under S. 454, Cr. P.C. has committed an error of law in directing return of gold nuggets to the informant in spite of the fact that the informant neither claimed the same during the trial nor identified them to be the stolen properties in T.I. parade conducted in course of investigation. Mr. Ramdas reiterated that the informant having not filed any application under S. 452, Cr. P.C. for return of gold nuggets which were admitted seized from the petitioners the appellate Court acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction in reversing the decision of the learned Magistrate and directing to return the gold nuggets to the informant.