GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise out of the judgment dated November 7, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1988 (Mahesh Kumar Vs. Gulab Singh and another) and I, therefore, propose to decide both these revision petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) SHRI Than Singh lodged a First Information Report on May 29, 1986, at police station Barmer that in the intervening night between May 28/29, 1986. a theft took-place in his house. A case was registered and the police, during investigation, recovered the stolen articles. The police, also, recovered golden ingot, weighing 159. 500 grams from Mahesh Kumar. The accused pleaded guilty and they were convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, by his judgment dated May 11, 1988. While convicting and sentencing the accused, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the golden ingot may be delivered to the complainant's brother Gulab Singh. Dissatisfied with this order, ordering for the delivery of the golden ingot to Gulab Singh, Mahesh Kumar filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, who, by his order dated November 7, 1988, allowed the appeal in part and set-aside the order giving delivery of the golden ingot to Gulab Singh, as according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there is no evidence on record from which it could be gathered that the golden ingot belongs to Gulab Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also refused to give the delivery of the golden ingot to Mahesh Kumar. It is against this order that both these revision-petitions have been preferred by Mahesh Kumar and Gulab Singh.

(3.) IN the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. The orders dated November 7, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, affirming the order dated May 11,1988, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, are set-aside and the case is sent back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, to decide the question as to who is the person best entitled for the delivery of the golden ingot, after giving an opportunity for producing the evidence and of hearing to both the parties. .