IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 25 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2020 of 2013 RAKESH DANGI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Priyank Sandilya - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER

1. This appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2012. By the said judgment, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, but while passing the order regarding disposal of property under Section 452 Cr.P.C., directed that the amount of ₹2,96,000/-, seized during investigation from the house of the appellant, be given to the complainant, Shri Thakur Prasad Chandravanshi, treating the same as part of the looted property.

2. The appellant has assailed this part of the judgment, contending that the direction to hand over the seized amount to the complainant is legally unsustainable, as the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the said amount was the looted money, whereas the appellant had established by cogent evidence that the money in question was derived from a valid source — the sale of agricultural land by his mother.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.11.2011 at about 9:00 p.m., the complainant, Shri Thakur Prasad Chandravanshi, who was working as Field Assistant in Dhanuka Agritech Limited, Sehore, was travelling in a car along with his driver Banwarilal for collecting the company’s dues from its creditors. When they reached near village Chhapri, it is alleged that four unknown persons intercepted their vehicle, threatened them with a firearm, and snatched away a briefcase containing about ₹6,00,000/- in cash. The complainant also alleged that his mobile phone and the car key were taken away by the assailants.

4. A report was lodged at Police Station Doraha under Section 392 IPC against unknown persons. During investigation, the appellant, Rakesh Dangi, was arrested and a sum of ₹2,96,000/- was seized from his house. The prosecution claimed that this amount formed part of the looted property.

5. The appellant denied any involvement in the alleged offence and asserted that the seized amount had no connection with the alleged loot. He consistently maintained that the sum of ₹2,96,000/- was part of the sale proceeds received by his family through a genuine and registered transaction of sale of agricultural land. His mother, Smt. Omwati Bai, had sold one acre of agricultural land to Smt. Krishnabai under a registered sale deed dated 14.11.2011 (Exhibit D-1) for a total consideration of ₹3,20,000/-.

6. In support of this defence, the appellant examined his mother, Smt. Omwati Bai DW1, and the purchaser, Smt. Krishnabai DW2. Both witnesses corroborated the appellant’s case in all material particulars, affirming that the sale had taken place lawfully and that the consideration was paid in cash. The defence also explained that since the family did not have a PAN card or bank account, the money was retained in the house.

7. After full trial, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, by judgment dated 28.06.2013, acquitted all seven accused persons, including the present appellant, of the charge under Section 392 and 395 of the IPC. The learned trial court held that the complainant had failed to identify any of the accused during the test identification parade and that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of looted property from the accused in accordance with law.

8. However, while passing the order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for disposal of property, the learned trial court directed that the amount of ₹2,96,000/-, seized from the possession of the appellant, be given to the complainant, treating it as part of