A. APPALA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. Case No. 21 of 1990 in respect of the seized property confiscating the same i.e., M.O.-I to the State.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that on the midnight of 9.5.1987, when Sadhu Mali with his family members were asleep in their house, about 12 to 13 persons in police uniform entered, tied the inmates of the house and committed theft of gold ornaments worn by the ladies with cash and transistor radio etc. and then keeping the inmates confined in a room left the place. On 10.5.1987 around 2.00 a.m., the matter being orally.reported by Sadhu Mali at Govindpalli Police outpost, station diary entry to that effect was made and thereafter the same was treated as F.I.R. and Mathili P.S. Case No. 25 of 1987 was instituted followed by investigation. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against eleven accused persons, in the first round of trial in S.C. Case No. 20 of 1988, eight accused persons were acquitted and in the next rounds of trial in S.C. Case No. 23 of 1988 and 40 of 1988 in respect of other accused persons, the prosecution met the same fate. At last, accused Amarlal Ahuja faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 21 of 1990 and he has also been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. While recording the order of acquittal at the end with regard to the disposal of the property, order has been passed and M.O.-I being claimed either by any of the prosecution witnesses or the accused persons, the same has been confiscated to the State. This order of confiscation is under challenge at the behest of the appellant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that here in the case the appellant having been examined as P.W. 3 has clearly staked his claim with respect to the said seized gold ornaments which was kept in a melted form by him at the time of seizure, having been purchased from accused Ramji who has already been acquitted. It is, therefore, his submission that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without taking the evidence of P.W. 3 into consideration has passed the order of said M.O.-I to the State, erroneously viewing that no claim was advanced by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the State supports the order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of confiscation of M.O.-I to the State.