N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two criminal revision cases are filed aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, nizamabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 14 and 18 of 1991 dismissing the accused appeal no. 14 of 1991 and allowing the defacto complainant s appeal No. 18 of 1991 and directing that M. Os. l to 3 i. e. cash of rs. 40,000/- (M. O. I), gold chain (M. O. 2) and gold gundlu with eenalu (M. O. 3) to be returned to the complainant.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner in cr. R. C. 229/93 who is the accused-appellant in Crl. Appeal 14/91 has been charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, nizamabad town for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of indian Penal Code stating that on the night of 23-3-1988 at about 8-45 p. m. he gained entrance into the house of the defacto complainant and committed theft of M. Os. 1 to 3. The trial court disposed the case on merits by its judgment dated 21-1-1991 acquitting the accused for the offences alleged and confiscating M. Os. 1 to 3 to the State. Aggrieved by the confiscation order the complainant filed Crl. Appeal 18/91 contending that M. Os. 1 to 3 belong to him and therefore the property order may be set aside and M. Os. 1 to 3 returned to him. The accused also filed criminal Appeal No. 14/91 before the appellate court stating that he was kept in illegal detention and on being harassed by police he arranged for M. Os. 1 to 3 and handed over to police and since it is the case of the prosecution that M. Os. 1 to 3 were recovered from him they should have been returned to him instead of confiscating the same to State.

( 3 ) THE appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant directing the lower court to return M. Os. 1 to 3 to the complainant after expiry of revision time. The lower appellate court further dismissed the appeal filed by the accused holding that the accused is not entitled for m. Os. 1 to 3. Therefore these two revision cases are filed by the accused separately for allowing the appeal of the complainant and dismissing his appeal by the lower appellate court. However, for the sake of convenience the two revision cases are disposed of by a common order.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is quite incorrect and contrary to the provisions of section 452 of the Code of Criminal procedure. According to him when the law is well established that normally on the closure of case where case is finally disposed and accused is acquitted and if the complainant failed to establish that stolen articles belonged to him and when the accused claims that the articles seized belong to him they should have been returned to the accused. The trial court should not order return of the articles to the complainant in the absence of establishing the same when they entered into the witness box. He relied upon a decision reported in Madhavan v. State of Kerala (1)AIR 1979 SC 1829 wherein it was held as follows:" When after an enquiry or trial, the accused is discharged or acquitted, the court should normally restore the property which is in its custody to the person from whose custody it was taken. Departure of this rule of practice is not to be lightly made when there is no dispute or doubt that the property was seized from the custody of such accused and belonged to him"he further relied on a decision reported in mahadeb Mahakur v. State of Orissa (2) 1989 (3) Crimes 685 wherein it was held as follows:"the Supreme Court held that at the conclusion of trial when the accused is acquitted the court should normally restore the property which is in its custody to the person from whose custody it was taken. The facts and circumstances of the case do not disclose any such exceptional circumstances which would justify the departure from the normal rule that on acquittal of accused the property should be returned to person from whom it was seiz

Click Here to Read the rest of this document