Important Point—Nature of offence contemplated by Section 124 of Maharashtra Police Act is quite different from offence of dacoity, robbery or theft.

ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of one and the same judgment i.e. judgment and order dated 26th July 2004 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge at Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1505/99.

2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 were the accused nos. 2 and 10, respectively, in the said case, while the appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 was a witness (P.W.8) therein.

3. The circumstances giving rise to these Appeals and the facts necessary to understand the controversy are as under:-

On 6th July 1994, a dacoity took place and cash of Rs. 12,63,100/- belonging to Killburn Engineering Ltd. (respondent No. 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 and respondent No. 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04) was robbed from the possession of its employees. On the First Information Report lodged by one of the employees, investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, cash of Rs. 7,07,805/- was seized by the police claiming it to be a part of the robbed property. Though the Investigating Agency named 10 persons as the accused, actually only the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 i.e. Omkarsingh Jat (accused No. 2) and Smt. Jarjinder Jat (accused No. 10) were prosecuted, as one of the others died and seven either absconded, or could not be arrested at all. The appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 (original accused nos. 2 and 10 respectively) are related to each other as husband and wife.

4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed a charge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC, 395 IPC, 307 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC and section 353 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC against the appellant No. 1 and a charge of offences punishable under sections 120-B of the IPC and 414 of the IPC against the appellant No. 2. Thus, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) had taken part along with other accused in the actual dacoity, assault etc, and the appellant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 10) had conspired with and assisted the accused No. 2 in concealing and/or disposing of the property obtained by the accused No. 2 by committing the dacoity in question.

5. The prosecution examined totally 13 witnesses during the trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons had committed the offences with which they were charged, or any of them. He, however, held that the accused persons had committed an offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (now Maharashtra Police Act). As such, he convicted both of them of the said offence and sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons of all the other offences, including the offence punishable u/s. 414 of the IPC (with which the accused No. 10 was charged).

6. During the trial, consistently with the case of the prosecution, evidence was adduced to show that the accused No. 10 had purchased a row house bearing No. RH/1/L/3 in Sector No. 7, Vashi, from Milind Shringarpure (PW8) the appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04. The consideration therefor was Rs. 7,00,000/- which was paid by the accused No. 10 to the said Milind Shringarpure.

7. Apart from challenging the correctness of their conviction as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 are also challenging the order of disposal of the property, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Code). Thus, the said Appeal is a composite appeal under se