DHANRAJ BALDEOKISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revisions No. 343 of 1963 by Messrs. Dhanraj Baldeokishan through its partner Dhanraj and No. 344 of 1963 by Messrs. Radhakishan vidyadhar through its partner Banshidhar and raise an identical question for decision, which arises in circumstances presently to be mentioned.

(2.) ONE Kanhiya who incidentally was not impleaded as respondent in these revisions was the common accused in both the cases. On a notice having been ordered to issue to him, he is represented by counsel before us. The case for the prosecution was that a theft of 108 bags of Sarson in the case of Messrs. Dhanraj baldeokishan and 80 bags of gram in the case of Messrs. Radhakishan Vidyadhar had been committed by the accused Kanhiya some time between the 31st May to the 12th July, 1961. The police recovered a sum of Rs. 3800 in the first case and rs. 1200 in the second case at the instance of the accused as being the sale proceeds of the stolen commodities on a statement made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 380 I. P. C. and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment in each case. On appeal by the accused, his conviction and sentence in both the cases were set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, by his separate judgments dated the 6th June, 1963. Having acquitted the accused, the learned Judge addressed himself to the question of the disposal of the two sums of Rs. 3800 and Rs. 1200 which had been recovered by the police during the course of the investigation. He went on to observe that the accused did not claim the money to be his own at the trial and, therefore, he was not entitled to it. He further entertained the view that the complainants were not entitled to these monies either, as the case against the accused had failed. Consequently he came to the conclusion that the said monies be confiscated to the State. It is against this part of the order of the court below that the present revisions have been filed.

(3.) THE contention which is raised on behalf of the complainants petitioners in both these cases is that the learned Judges of the lower appellate court had fallen into a grave error in ordering the confiscation to the State of the monies recovered in these cases during the course of the investigation from a place pointed out by the accused and that he should have ordered these monies to be paid to the petitioners. Strong reliance is placed in support of this submission on the fact that the accused in each case had made a confessional statement to the police while in custody that he had realised these monies by sale of the stolen commodities and that he had buried them at the place or places wherefrom they were subsequently recovered. It is further submitted in this connection that even though the entire statements so made during the investigation might not have been admissible in law against the accused to the trial, there was and can be no objection to their admissibility in evidence after the trial had concluded and the question of the disposal of the property under Section 517 Criminal Procedure Code arose for consideration.