The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove ownership of recovered property and the procedure for handling case property during the pendency of a criminal case.

This is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 20. 11. 2001 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad relating to case crime No. 254 of 2001 of Police Station Kydganj District Allahabad under sections 380/411 I. P. C. and the judgment and order dated 15. 5. 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 which was filed against the aforesaid order of the CJM Allahabad.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application under section 482 Cr. P. C. are that on 27. 10. 2001 the applicant Vijay Kumar lodged an F. I. R. at police station Kydganj District Allahabad against the accused Renu and Pintoo (opp. Parties No. 2 and 3 in the present case) with these allegations that Vijay Kumar on the death of his mother had gone to Jasra along with his family. When he returned back to his house, he noticed that some cash and ornaments were missing from a Box in his house No. 168b Krishna Nagar Kydganj Allahabad whereas other items lying in the house were untouched. He had suspicion upon Renu and Pintoo, who had distant relationship with him. Thereafter he went to the police station to lodge the report.

3. On the basis of above report the police registered the case under section 380 I. P. C. and investigated the same. It is alleged that on 2. 11. 2001 Mr. Awanish Kumar, S. I. received information from an informer that two culprits, who had thrown bombs on police party on 30. 10. 2001 at Mohalla Garhaiya, were waiting for some vehicle near Bagar Dharmshala. When they reached that Dharmshala along with the police party on Jeep, those two persons tried to run away and then they were arrested and on seeing them Head Constable Naseemuddin and constable Vidyasagar Shukla told the S. I. that these very persons had thrown bombs upon them on 30. 10. 2001 and that their names were Pin-too and Anju Sonkar. A search was taken and upon search 18 silver Lakshas and one golden chain were recovered from the back pocket of Pintoo. The other person told his name Anju Sonkar and upon his search a Potali was recovered from his possession and in that Potali one silver belt, one golden chain, 46 coins of Rs. 5/- denomination each, 18 coins of Rs. 2/- denomination each, 230 coins if Rs. 1/- domination eaehr, 74 coins of 50 paise denomination each, 11 coins of 25 paise each, total Rs. 659/- and 75 paise were recovered from him and upon interrogation they allegedly confessed to have stolen these ornaments and cash from the house of Vijai Kumar on 26. 10. 2001. A large number of persons had collected there and out of them one person with his wife came out and told that his name was Vijay Kumar and his wifes name was Kusum who identified all the ornaments and stated that these ornaments belonged to her. The recovery memo was prepared in the presence of one Raj Kumar Sonkar.

4. Thereafter Vijay Kumar moved an application for release of the above ornaments. This application was rejected by the A. C. J. M. Allahabad vide his order dated 20. 11. 2001 mentioning therein that the applicant had adduced a receipt of the ornaments but it was not prima facie proved that the applicant was owner of the recovered ornaments. Aggrieved with that order the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge which was heard and decided by Sri P. K. Srivastava Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Allahabad vide his judgment and order dated 15. 5. 2002. He was of the view that it was not sufficiently proved that the applicant was owner of the ornaments and that the ornaments were case property and they will be required to be produced before the Court at the time of hearing of the case, hence there was no justification for releasing those ornaments. The revision was therefore dismissed. Aggrieved with these two orders the applicant filed the present application under section 482 Cr. P. C.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for applicant as well as the