PRABODH KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the appellants call in question the validity of the order dated 7-7-93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1/93 refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 452 of the Code.

(2.) The present appellants along with one Pramila Patnaik faced trial under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'the IPC') in S. T. Case No. 239/54 of 1989 and were ultimately convicted for the said offences by the learned trial Judge and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years under Section 304-B, IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the other charges.It is relevant to state here that the learned trial Judge while convicting the accused persons and sentencing them as aforesaid had given directions in respect of the seized articles directing that if the parties were desirous of establishing their claim over the seized properties they should approach the Civil Court within the period of limitation after reaching of the finality of his judgment, failing which the seized articles would be forfeited to the State after a year from the last date of the period of limitation was over. An appeal was carried to this Court forming the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 239/90 wherein this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence but did not pass any order relating to the direction made in respect of the seized articles.

(3.) After the judgment of this Court the present appellants filed an application under Section 452 of the Code with the prayer that the seized articles should be handed over to them as they were entitled to the same, for they were seized during investigation from their custody. It is pertinent to mention here that some of the seized articles were given in zima of P.W. 1, the father of the bride. 'The said application was resisted to by the Public Prosecutor contending that the same should be disposed of as per the order passed by the said Court on earlier occasion as that part of the order has been affirmed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after referring to the judgment delivered in S. T. Case No. 238/54 of 1989 and the judgment passed in the criminal appeal by this Court came to hold that as the appellate Court had not passed any order for disposal of the properties the direction given at the first instance in relation to the disposal of the seized properties has been affirmed and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.