JUDGMENT :

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

" It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 01/10/93 passed by the trial court be set aside in respect of the property ordered to be restored to Respondent No.2 and the same be ordered to be restored to the appellant."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recovery has been wrongfully shown to have effected in the police station, which is evident from the contradictory and inconsistent depositions made by certain other witnesses, who have categorically deposed that the recovery in question had happened at Nagar Palika.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there was no proof that the Ramnavmi in question belongs to the so called owner. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that once the appellant has been acquitted and the court has not found that Anandi Lal and Ram Sahai had caused selling of the stolen articles, then the order of releasing the Ram Navmi article No.6 in favour of PW-5, Shanker is not in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that it is settled principle of law that once a person has been acquitted of the charge in the cases like the present one, then the issue of any right or liability (ownership, in particular) of the respective parties qua any article, has to be dealt with by the Civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present assailment is further sustainable, in light of the fact that PW-5 Shanker, in whose favour the article No.6 was ordered to be released, has not whispered even a single word before the learned trial court regarding his ownership in connection with the said article, and thus, when the said claim was never raised at the appropriate stage, the same cannot be gone into at a later stage.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 401 (V 56 C79), relevant portion reads as under:-

“5. The next question which arises in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified on merits in ordering the currency notes to be returned to respondents 1 and 2. It was argued by Mr. Mishra that the High Court hat a discretion under the statute as to whom the property was to be returned and there was no reason why this Court should interfere with such exercise of discretion by the High Court. We are unable to accent the argument. It iS true that sections 517 and 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confer a discretion on the High Court as regards the disposal of the property seized or produced before it or regarding which any offence was said to have been committed. But as we shall presently show the High Court has not exercised its discretion according to proper legal principle and its order is hence liable to be set aside. It was stated by Mr. Mishra that the question involved in (1) A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1110 this case is whether as to which out of two innocent parties should suffer, viz.; the person who lost the property due to the criminal, act of another or the person to whom the property (currency notes) had been delivered in the normal course of its business. It is not, however, correct to say that respondents 1 and 2 are equally innocent because respondents 1 and 2 had admittedly handed over the currency notes to respondent No. 3 "for the criminal purpose of duplication". It was indeed urged on behalf of the appellant that respondents 1 and 2 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with respondent No. 3 for 'duplicating' the currency notes. In any event, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in directing the return of the currency notes to respondents 1