The court upheld the principle that the High Court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.

1. - The State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents as under:-

Vaman Narain Ghiya (Accused Respondent No.1) 379/120B, 413/120B, 414, 414/120B and 401 IPC and for offences under Section 5/25(2) of the Antique & Art Treasure Act, 1972 (the AAT Act, for short).

Banne Singh @ Pahalwan (Accused Respondent No. 2) 379/120B, 413/120B, 414, 414/120B and 401 IPC and for offences under Sections 3/25(1) and 5/25(2) of the AAT Act.

2. According to the prosecution, in the year 2002, two FIRs, namely FIR No.128/02 and FIR No. 142/02 were registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offence under Section 411 IPC. These FIRs were not registered against the accused respondents; they were against other persons. While investigating these two FIRs, the police discovered that a gang was operating in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh which was indulging in stealing antique sculptures and artifacts, and in exporting and selling them abroad. It was also discovered that Jaipur is the center of their nefarious activities. In order to carry out an extensive investigation with regard to these activities, Mr. Anand Srivastava, the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (North), constituted a team of investigators. The team kept surveillance over the alleged offenders.

3. On 6.6.2003, Ram Singh (P.W.76), the SHO, P.S. Vidyadhar Nagar, received a secret information that four persons were discussing the sale of antique statues at Ganesh Park, which fell under the jurisdiction of his police station. Immediately, a team of policemen reached the park. They found four persons sitting behind a tree. Mr. Chandra Purohit, S.I. (P.W.58) eavesdropped on their conversation. He heard them talking about buying and selling of antique statues and artifacts. The police party surrounded and searched the four persons. From their search, the police not only recovered antique statues, but also discovered photographs of antique sculptures. From the accused respondent No. 2, Banne Singh, the police recovered two photographs of antique sculptures. It seized the statues and the photographs, and a motorcycle belonging to the accused respondent No. 2. The four persons were arrested. Upon returning to the Police Station, Ram Singh (P. W. 76) registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 146/2003 for offences under Section 379, 411, 401 IPC, and for offences under Sections 5, 14/25(2) of the AAT Act.

4. After interrogating these four persons, the police realised that the accused respondent No. 1 was equally involved in stealing, in receiving stolen properties, and in exporting antique statues and artifacts. Therefore, on 7.6.2003 a police team raided the house of accused respondent No. 1 situated at Plot No.41, Everest Colony, Lalkothi Scheme, Jaipur. It seized a total of eighteen photographs, sixty-eight catalogs of private auction houses, namely Christie and Sotheby, and seventy-two paintings. The accused respondent No. 1 was arrested in his house. Furthermore, upon three different statements given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused respondent No. 1, the police recovered ten antique sculptures and a large consignment of antique art objects/ artifacts.

5. As far as accused respondent No. 2 is concerned, during the course of investigation, on 6.6.2003, he allegedly made a statement (Ex. P. 1110) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to Ram Singh (P.W. 76). He told Ram Singh that he has kept twelve antique statues at his residential house in his village Rudhapura, District Karauli. In pursuance of this statement, Richhpal Singh Jhakhar (P.W. 1) took Banne Singh to his village and recovered, from his house and farm, twelve statues. These statues were recovered by Ex. P.44; the Site Plan was also drawn as Ex. P. 45. During the trial, these statues were marked as Article 442 to 453.

6. Moreover, ac