Sections 451 and 452 of CrPC serve distinct purposes; ownership claims in recovered property must be substantiated by evidence, regardless of acquittal of accused.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2005 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 452 of CrPC arising out of the judgment dated 14.06.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 141/2004 has been rejected in which all the accused have been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court. During pendency of the appeal, complainant Buddha Prakash Soni expired, therefore, his legal representatives are substituted in his place as appellants.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, a Criminal Case No. 141 of 2004 was initiated against the accused/respondents for commission of offence under Sections 395 and 412 of IPC on the complaint of the complainant alleging that on 15.08.2003 at about 7.00 PM in the evening, when he was returning to village from Bhatgaon market with his son Kamal Soni on the motorcycle and they reached near Bodri road then the accused/respondents who were seven in number committed robbery of 15 kg silver, 5 tola gold and cash Rs. 4000/- total worth of Rs. 1 lakh from his possession.

3. During investigation, memorandum statements of the accused/ respondents under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded and on the memorandum statement of the accused silver and gold ornaments were recovered from their possession as per property seizure which were exhibited as Ex.P-20, Ex.P-27, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-18, Ex.P 19. The complainant identified the article under (Ex.P-8) on 21.07.2004. Jeweller Rajesh Kumar Soni has identified the silver and gold articles under (Ex.P-21) and issued certificate of 13^th articles (Ex.P-21). According to which, total weight of articles was 1380 gram worth of Rs. 11,000/-.

4. The details of property seized from each of the accused as per property seizure memos are given in the tabulate form as under:-

5. During trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 457 CrPC for handing over seized property on supurdnama before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh claiming ownership on the count that the applicant is goldsmith and the property seized by the Police from the accused is deteriorating, therefore, it may be handed over to him. One of the accused namely Radhey Shyam Chandra who was charged for committing robbery has filed objection contending that he has no objection to hand over the property which has been seized on the memorandum statement of Nasir Khan dated 19.06.2004 from Radhey Shyam Chandra as well as all the property seized from him except from No. 1 to 8 as the said property belonged to accused Radhey Shyam Chandra. It has also been contended that the seized property are disputed, therefore, its identification is necessary and has prayed for rejection of the application so far as the property seized from accused Radhey Shayam Chandra. Learned CJM has rejected the same vide order dated 25.09.2024.

6. The appellant after judgment of the criminal trial has moved an application for handing over the property on supurdnama before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 452 CrPC which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 63 of 2005. Learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 21.07.2005 has rejected on the count that earlier the trial Court has rejected the application under Section 457 CrPC and the learned Sessions Court while disposing of the criminal trial No. 141 of 2004 has not given any decision with reg