GHOORMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by Ghoormal accused in a case under sec. 380 I. P. C. The case was instituted in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Lachhmangarh, on the report of Narain, opposite party. A sum of Rs. 7551- was recovered from the accused Ghoormal on a search made by the police during investigation. Ghoormal and one Mangia Ram were convicted by the Magistrate under sec. 380, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. As regards the property recovered from the accused, an order was made that it be returned to the complainant Narain on the expiration of the period prescribed for appeal. Both the accused went in appeal, and the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, allowed their appeal, and set aside their conviction and sentences, and acquitted them. He, however, made no order regarding the delivery of property. THIS order in appeal was made on the 18th of May, 1949. After the disposal of the appeal, the complainant Narain made an application on the 12th of July, 1949, to the Magistrate concerned praying for the delivery of the property to him. He made another application on the 14th of July, 1949, to the Sessions Judge, praying that an order be sent to the Magistrate concerned for delivery of the property to him. On this application, the learned Sessions Judge made an order dated the 14th July, 1949, that the appeal had been disposed of, and the property be delivered to the complainant in terms of the Magistrate's order, which was made at the time of conviction of the accused. The Magistrate made an order that the property should be delivered to the complainant and a receipt be obtained. THIS order was made on the 19th of July, 1949. On receipt of this order, the police returned the property including the cash in question to the complainant, and obtained a receipt, and forwarded it to the Magistrate. After this, the application, out of which this revision has arisen, was made by Ghoormal and Mangia praying that the cash which had been delivered to the complainant Narain by the court be realised from him, and made over to them (Ghoormal and Mangia ). The learned Sessions Judge, however, made an order on the 15th of March, 1951, that the order about the delivery of property had already been passed, and no order inconsistent with the said order could be made. Against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, the. applicant Ghoormal has filed this application for revision.

(2.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the applicant and Mangia were acquitted, the property which was taken possession of by the police on the search of the applicant during investigation of the theft: case ought to have been returned to him, and it ought not to have been returned to the complainant. As the property was illegally returned, it should be taken back from the complainant and made over to the applicant.