Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1927
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 419-20 of 2005 (Arising out of SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 2128-29 of 2004
Decided On : 14-03-2005
The trial court's direction to establish title through the civil court for seized articles was upheld as justified.
Headnote:
Conviction - Custody of Seized Gold Articles - Interpretation of Trial Court's Direction
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. The trial court directed the parties to establish their title to seized gold articles through the civil court. The appeals were filed against the custody order, resulting in conflicting decisions by the appellate court and the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's direction to establish title through the civil court was justified. The appellate court and the High Court were not justified in reversing and confirming the same, respectively.
Issues: Interpretation of trial court's direction on custody of seized gold articles
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's direction to establish title through the civil court was upheld as justified, and the decisions of the appellate court and the High Court were set aside.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the orders of the High Court and the appellate court were set aside, and the trial court's order was restored.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and two years respectively. So far as the custody of seized gold articles MOs 1 to 5 is concerned, it was directed by the trial court that it would be open to the parties to get their title established, meaning thereby, by moving the competent civil court by filing an appropriate suit. Against the order of conviction, no appeal was preferred; whereas against the order of the trial court regarding custody of MOs 1 to 5, the complainant as well as PW3 filed separate appeals. The appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed by the Sessions Court; whereas the same filed by PW3 was allowed and MOs 1 to 5 were directed to be released in favour of PW3. The said order has been confirmed by the High Court. Hence, these appeals by special leave.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, we are of the view that the trial court was quite justified in directing the parties to get their title established by moving the competent civil court. The appellate court was not justified in reversing the same and the High Court was not justified in confirming the appellate court's order.
4. The appeal are, accordingly, allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the appellate Court are set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is restored.
Appeal allowed.
