JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---These revision applications which arise out of the same original criminal case can be disposed of conveniently by the common judgment.

2. In all these revisions the applicant has challenged the common order passed in identical four criminal appeals by the learned Sessions Judge allowing the appeals of the non-applicants and setting aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate about return of property in the criminal case to the applicant.

3. The facts are that three accused by names Sitaram (accused No. 1), Ramsingh (accused No. 2) and Deepak (accused No. 3) were tried for the offences punishable under sections 379,411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 1054 of 80 decided on 3-4-1982. The prosecution case was that Sitaram (accused No. 1) was the driver of the applicant. On 24-1-1980 the applicant who had gone to Lonar in district Buldana with his family to attend the marriage, was returning to his house. The accused No. 1 Sitara, was the driver of his car. The wife of the applicant had taken her ornament box with her for the marriage. The said box was kept in dicky of the car. However, after returning to their house when the box was opened, it was found that four folden bangles and the necklace kept therein were missing. A report was, therefore, lodged i the Police Station about the theft of the above articles. The matter was investigated into by the Police. The aforesaid three accused were arrested and were prosecuted for the offences under sections 379,411 and 414 of the Indian penal Code.

4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution led evidence to show that after the accused No. 1 committed theft of the above golden ornaments he handed over the golden bangles and necklace to the accused No. 2 who is related to him as their wives are sisters. The accused No. 2 Ramsingh in turn handed them over to the accused No. 3 Deepak who is a gold-smith. The said Deepak converted them into accused No. 2 Ramsingh had as per his memorandum statement (Ex. 23) made discovery of certain golden ornaments which were seized as per seizure memo (Ex. 24 and Ex. 25). It is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 2000/- was recovered and seized from Parvatibai who is non-applicant No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 1331 of 89 and mother-in-law of the accused No. 1 and 2. It is also their case that some golden bars were recovered and seized from one Bhaurao who is the non-applicant No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 134 of 89. Then according to the prosecution, from Leelabai the wife of the accused No. 2 Ramsingh one Mangalsutra, wrist watch and some other golden ornaments were recovered and were seized Leelabai is the non-applicant No. 1 in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 89. Similarly it is the case of the prosecution that one golden earring was recovered from the accused No. 2 Deepak.

5. The learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on record held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of theft under section 379 of I.P.C. and other offences under sections 411 and 414 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. He therefore acquitted them. As regards the return of the property, after considering the material on record, the learned trial Magistrate held that the applicant was entitled to return of the proper which was seized from the above non-applicants in the instant revision. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Magistrates as regards the return of the properly to the applicant, the above non-applicant No. 1 in each of the appeals preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who by his common order passed in the said appeals, set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate as regards the return of the property and directed that the property in question which was seized from the aforesaid non-applicants should be returned to them. It may incidental be stated that against the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the accused persons an ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document