MODI, J.—These are two revisions No. 433 of 1963 by Messrs Dhanraj Baldeo-Kishan through its partner Dhanraj and No. 344 of 1963 by Messrs. Radhakishan Vidyadhar through its partner Banshidhar and raise an identical question for decision, which arises in circumstances presently to be mentioned.

2. One Kanhiya who incidentally was not impleaded as respondent in these revisions was the common accused in both the cases. On a notice having been ordered to issue to him, he is represented by counsel before us. The case for the prosecution was that a theft of 108 bags of Sarson in the case of Messrs. Dhanraj Baldeokishan and 80 bags of gram in the case of Messrs Radhakishan Vidyadhar had been committed by the accused Kanhiya some time between the 31st May to the 12th July, 1961. The police recovered a sum of Rs. 3800/- in the first case and Rs. 1200/- in the second case at the instance of the accused as being the sale proceeds of the stolen commodities on a statement made by him under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court convicted the accused under sec. 380 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment in each case. On appeal by the accused, his conviction and sentence in both the cases were set aside by the Additional .Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, by his separate judgments dated the 6th June, 1963. Having acquitted the accused, the learned Judge addressed himself to the question of the disposal of the two sums of Rs 3800/- and Rs. 1200/- which had been recovered by the police during the course of the investigation. He went on to observe that the accused did not claim the money to be his own at the trial and, therefore, he was not entitled to it. He further, entertained the view that the complainants were not entitled to these monies either, as the case against the accused had failed. Consequently he came to the conclusion that the said monies be confiscated to the State. It is against this part of the order of the court below that the present revisions have been filed.

3. The contention which is raised on behalf of the complainants petitioners in both these cases is that the learned Judges of the lower appellate court had fallen into a grave error in ordering the confiscation to the State of the monies recovered in these cases during the course of the investigation from a place pointed out by the accused and that he should have ordered these monies to be paid to the petitioners. Strong reliance is placed in support of this submission on the fact that the accused in each case had made a confessional statement to the police while in custody that he had realised these monies by sale of the stolen commodities and that he had buried them at the place or places where from they were subsequently recovered. It is further submitted in this connection that even though the entire statements so made during the investigation might not have been admissible in law against the accused at the trial, there was and can be no objection to their admissibility in evidence after the trial, had concluded and the question of the disposal of the property under sec. 517 Criminal Procedure Code arose for consideration.

4. My attention has been invited in this connection to a number of cases to some of which I shall presently refer.

5. In Pohlu vs. Emperor (1), the accused was convicted of an offence u/sec. 411 I.P.C. The complainant applied for the restoration of some 50 Tolas of gold into which the stolen jewellery had been converted. The Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence to show that this gold was the complainants property and consequently he set aside the order of the trial court so far as restoration of the gold was concerned. On a revision having been taken to the Lahore High Court, it was held that the statement made by the accused at the time of the recovery that he had hidden five molten pieces of gold prepared from the stolen ornaments in earthern pot at a certain spot could be taken into consideration notwithstanding tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document