YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a proprietor of firm M/s. Kalyan Craft in Zohari Bazar, Jaipur. He deals in Gems, Precious Stones and Semi-precious Stones. On the night between 5-6 Jan., 1990 a theft took place in his shop by breaking open the locks. All valuables kept in the shop were taken away. These items were kept in small packets on which steaker of the firm was affixed. He lodged the report and the police arrested the accused Jitendra Kumar @ Sunny and the stolen items were recovered from him. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Magistrate for releasing the stolen items in his favour but his application was rejected on 22nd Jan., 1990 on the ground that the identification of the articles has not been made and the investigation was pending. After the identification of the articles he again moved an application but the same was refused on 2nd March, 1990. Thereafter the petitioner moved a petition under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. before this court and this was disposed on 20th July, 1990. It was ordered that the custody of the gems, jewels, precious and semi-precious stones be delivered to him on his furnishing a superdginama in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees Four lacs) on the condition that he shall produce the articles in court on all the dates of hearing and as and when required by the trial court and that he shall not dispose them during the pendency of the trial or without the previous permission of the trial court. He shall keep the articles in a sealed condition as sealed by the court.

(2.) The trial of the case proceeded for sometime but on 7th Dec., 1990 the accused absconded and since then no progress has been made in the case and the accused has not been arrested and produced before the court so far. The petitioner applied for permission to sell the goods but the same was refused vide order dated 16th March, 1991. He has now preferred this petition under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. for seeking permission to dispose the articles which have been handed over to him.

(3.) It has been contended that the valuables have been sealed and delivered to him but he is not able to carry on his business as a condition has been imposed that they shall be kept in the condition in which they have been sealed by the Court. According to him he has small business and he requires the articles for sale as and when he finds a customer and for this he may be permitted to sale these articles. He has retained the goods for a long time but as the accused is not traceable and is absconding the end of the trial is also not in sight.