The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court should retain the seized property and decide its disposal at the conclusion according to law. The court also emphasized that the parties are not required to establish their title to the property while seeking its release under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. Heard Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel, for the applicant and Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P., for the respondent/State.

3. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this application is for issue of directions to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class for interim release of the seized property on execution of supratnama as per the provisions of section 451 of the Code.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order dated 5-2-2002 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in Reg. Criminal Case No. 114 of 1989 rejecting the application of the applicant for interim release of the seized property is under challenge before this Court. The learned Counsel further contended that the applicant was the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 116 of 1978. The allegations in the complaint were that in the night intervening 9-2-1976 and 10-2-1976, when the complainant was sleeping inside the house, gold ornaments, silver coins and sarees worth Rs. 20,000/- were stolen. The first information report was lodged at Police Station, Tamgaon, on the basis of which offence against two accused namely Vishwas and Shivraj came to be registered and they were charged for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that accused Shivraj was absconding and, therefore, his trial was separated. The trial of accused Vishwas was held and the learned J.M.F.C. convicted him by an order dated 31-12-1982 for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The said judgment of conviction was challenged before the Sessions Judge who, by his order dated 8-2-1985, allowed the appeal and ordered that the property should be returned to the accused Vishwas Deshmukh. The learned Counsel further contended that the said judgment of learned Sessions Judge was challenged in the High Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985 by the applicant. This Court by its order dated 19-12-1985 confirmed the order of acquittal but the order regarding disposal of the property was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for conducting fresh enquiry.

6. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that more than 12 years have passed and the co-accused Shivraj is still not traced out. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in the circumstances the seized property be released in favour of the applicant/complainant on execution of supratnama under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).

7. The learned A.P.P. contended that the present applicant is not entitled to seek the relief as prayed in view of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1988. He contended that in the aforesaid Criminal Revision, this Court in the last part of the judgment issued the following directions :

"The trial Court is directed to retain the property with itself. The Police Station Officer shall file the charge-sheet against the absconding accused and the question regarding the disposal of the property shall be decided at the conclusion according to law."

8. The learned A.P.P. contended that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed in the Court which was registered as Criminal Case No. 114 of 1989 and the said case is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. He further contended that the co-accused Shivraj is shown absconding and steps are being taken to secure his presence. He contended that the seized property including ornaments etc. would be required for the purpose of identification in that case which is fixed for recording of evidence and, in such circumstances, the seized property may not be released on execution of supratnama by the applicant/complainant.

9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document