The central legal point established in the judgment is the ownership of recovered stolen articles and the failure to report alleged illegal acts by the investigating officer.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 343/1997 has been preferred against the order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat ('lower appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 5/95, whereby the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat ('trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/83; vide the said order dated 13.02.1995 the recovered articles in question were ordered to be returned to respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Lal.

2. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 342/1997 has been preferred against the order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Appeal No. 6/95, whereby the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/83; vide the said order dated 13.02.1995 the recovered articles in question were ordered to be returned to respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Lal.

3. Ms. Yogita Mohnani, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the private respondent(s) submitted two applications (in both the revision petitions) under Section 394 Cr.P.C. (Inward No. 1/22) seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2-Bhanwar Lal on record.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Accordingly, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2-Bhanwarlal, as mentioned in the applications, are taken on record, being arrayed as party respondents in these petitions; amended cause titles already filed are also taken on record. Thus, such substitution shall also form part of the present judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 10.07.1980, a complaint was filed by the deceased-Bhanwarlal (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') to the effect that gold ornaments weighing 19½ tola and silver ornaments weighing 97 tola and a cash in a sum of Rs. 265/- were stolen from his house, on the previous night; report whereof was also lodged by the complainant, on the same day i.e. 10.07.1980, before the Police Station, Sojat, whereupon the same was registered as Criminal Case No. 126/80 for the offences under Section 457 & 380 IPC.

5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after two years of the alleged incident, the accused-Devaram was arrested, during the course of investigation.

5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that after being arrested, while the investigation was going on, the said accused-Devaram informed the concerned investigating officer that some of the stolen articles were being sold by him to goldsmith, namely, Dayaram s/o Gopilal s/o Sojat Road; some articles were sold by the accused to goldsmith, namely, Samir Sarraf r/o Sojat City; while some of the articles sold by him to goldsmith, namely, Ugam Raj s/o Bhanwar Surana.

5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that after investigation and the necessary recovery [of gold and silver in solid form (dhaliya)] having been effected from the concerned persons (buyers of the stolen articles in question), a charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and the trial according commenced.

5.4. Learned counsel also submitted that after trial, vide the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned trial court, the aforementioned accused-Deva Ram was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 IPC; for conviction under both the offences, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment.

5.5. Learned counsel however, submitted that vide the same impugned order dated 13.02.1995, learned trial court directed that the recovered articles shall be returned to the complainant; against such determination, the present petitioners preferred appeals before the lower appellate court, but the same were dismissed vide the imp