KURA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME moveables allegedly belonging to Sadhu Ram Complainant were stolen. The matter was reported to the police. During investigation thereof suggestedly those articles were recovered from the houses of the accused persons Kura and others. It appears that out of the accused arraigned, Kuru and Kasturi accused were convicted for offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by Shri B.N.M. Bajaj, judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal, vide order dated 4.8.1978. From the said order,the accused persons filed an appeal against their convictionand sentence before the Court of Session. Shri M.K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 18th September, 1980, acquitted the accused regarding the offence observing that it could not be held that the recovered articles were stolen property, and the said articles were of common pattern and no presumption could arise that the accused persons had retained them knowing them to be stolen property.

(2.) NOW in the order of the trial Magistrate, there was a direction that the stolen property be delivered to Sadhu Ram. On acquittal of the accused neither that direction was specifically set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor was there as specific finding that the plea of the accused, who has claimed the questioned property to be theres, stood accepted. To clarify the position, the learned trial Magistrate was approached by both the parties who vide order dated 20th November, 1980 took the view that in the circumstances the rival claim of the parties could well be decided by the Civil Court or by means of such other remedy available to them for the return of the articles under any law for the time being. The accused persons filed an appeal before Shri M.K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra against the aforesaid order of trail Magistrate. The learned Judge then ruled vide his order dated September 26, 1981, now sought to be revised, that by the acceptance of appeal of the accused, the order about the return of the case property to the accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State on the other hand has rightly contended that the trial Magistrate need be given the necessary directions to dispose of the property in accordance with section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for determining the person who entitled to claim its possession. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure elaborately deals withdisposal of property. The matter cannot be left in lurch. It has got to be decided by the Criminal Court expeditiously for no question intricate is involved herein. Thus the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Kurukshetra tilting the equilibrium deserves to set aside which is accordingly done. The direction of the learned Magistrate relegating the parties to settle their claim before the Civil Court too is set aride as a sequel there of The matter is remitted back to the trial Magistrate to decide the question of disposal of property in accordance with law.