JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

Revisional powers of this Court have been invoked by the petitioner challenging an order dated 17/12/2014 passed by the JMFC, Mapusa in Criminal Misc. Application No.254/Release/2014/A and an order dated 10/03/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Appeal No.12/2015.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

On 13/04/2005, the petitioner filed a report with Porvorim Police Station against unknown persons on account of theft of golden ornaments, cash and his service pistol from his residence. On the basis of the said report, crime bearing no.34/2005 came to be registered under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

3. Meanwhile, a letter was received by the petitioner from the Investigating Officer informing him that part of the gold in a melted condition has been recovered from the accused person and was lying with the police station. It was informed that if the petitioner desires to get the said gold he may apply to the Court.

4. On 16/10/2007, the petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after considering the say of the police directed the respondent no.1 to release and hand over the said gold to the petitioner on executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the petitioner, after executing the bond received the said melted gold which is in his possession.

5. The respondent no.2 is the goldsmith. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including that of the petitioner, by a judgment and order dated 28/05/2014, the accused came to be acquitted in Criminal Case No.47/S/2009/A.

6. After the acquittal of the accused, the respondent no.2 filed an application on 01/07/2014 under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. claiming custody of the melted gold. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 17/12/2014 was pleased to direct the petitioner to deposit the muddemal i.e. melted gold in the Court and upon depositing the same directed the same to be delivered to the respondent no.2 on his executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate had also imposed a condition that the bond will remain in force for a period of three months.

7. An appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the said order also came to be dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by the second impugned order dated 10/03/2016 and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned orders.

8. I heard Shri Bharne, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ganesh Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri S.R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.

9. Shri Bharne, drew my attention to the impugned orders, especially to the evidence of respondent no.2, who is the goldsmith, wherein he had categorically admitted that in the month of April, 2005 accused no.2 had been to his shop with gold ornaments comprising of four golden bangles and some raw material which he had purchased for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The total gold weighed 90 gms only.

10. Shri Bharne took me through Section 452 of Cr.P.C. which provides for disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial. He placed reliance on several judgments. He emphasised on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited V/s. Suryanarayanan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2009).

11. Learned Counsel took me through the evidence of other witnesses including the say of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which was given in the Trial Court, wherein it has been clearly stated that during investigation one suspect Anthony Kenavadekar, who was placed under arrest, admitted stealing property and which was ultimately sold to the respondent no.2 at Panaji. The said article was recovered at the instance of the accused. There was one more accused name