OM PARKASH AGGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 132 and 133 of 1973.

(2.) ON April 11, 1969, Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal, and Income Tax Officer, was going to Delhi in a car along with his wife, his son and his daughter. Smt. Nand Rani sister of Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal and her husband Shri Dina Nath were also travelling by the same car which was being driven by one Surinder Kumar Driver. This car met with an accident near Panipat. Surinder Kumar and Krishna Aggarwal, wife of Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal, died on the spot. Soon after the accident, Dina Nath, Smt Nand Rani wife of Shri Dina Nath and Bimal Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal also died in the hospital. The other occupants of the car were seriously injured. A case regarding this accident was registered at Police Station Panipat. In the course of the investigation, the investigating officer recovered Rs. 35,516/ - and change worth Rs. 1.40 from a purse lying in the car. Some ornaments were also recovered from the body of Smt. Krishna Aggarwal. A sum of Rs. 3060/ - was recovered from the person of Dina Nath and some ornaments were recovered from the body of Smt. Nand Rani deceased. It was alleged that Om Parkash Aggarwal was owner of all this property and a case under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was instituted against him. He was, however, acquitted in that case. Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal set up a plea in that corruption case that most of the things recovered by the police either belonged to his sister or her husband. The legal heirs of Dina Nath and Smt. Nand Rani filed an application before the learned Special Judge for the return of the cash and the ornaments. Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal filed an application for the return of the ornaments belonging to his wife. Along with the application regarding the return of cash and ornaments belonging to Dina Nath and Smt. Nand Rani a succession certificate was also produced before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge declined this application on the ground that the amount mentioned in the succession certificate did not cover the entire property claimed in the application and the cash recovered from the car did not tally with the amount of cash given in the succession certificate.