JUDGMENT
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 79/92 whereby the application filed under Section 452 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and their prayer to deliver the silver bangles (Kadas) to them was declined.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that an F.I.R. came to be lodged at Police Station Jarnwarangarh (Jaipur) on 24.12.1990 by one Girdhari Lal that Smt. Kani, wife of Ram Kishan, who had gone to graze the cattle was lying dead in the mustard field and her hands and feet were amputated and her ornaments were missing. Accused Kalurarn was arrested. On his discovery statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a knife and silver bangles were recovered at his instance. After investigation a charge-sheet Was filed against him in the concerned court. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. After trial accused was convicted and sentenced for the offences of murder and theft. But on appeal by him, this court acquitted him of the charges. The State preferred the S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the said judgment of acquittal. The same was also dismissed after notice to the accused and his acquittal by this court was upheld.
3. While convicting the accused, the trial court directed the silver bangles to be given to Ram Kishan, the husband of deceased Mst. Kani. The said order was neither challenged nor interfered with by this court or by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, after the acquittal of the accused by this court, an application was moved by the petitioners before the learned trial court for release of silver bangles in their favour claiming that the same belonged to them. Learned trial court by a detailed, well considered and well reasoned order dated 6.3.2000 rejected the application and declined to release the bangles in their favour. Aggrieved by the said order, they have preferred this appeal.
4. As per the directions of this court given on 11.10.2000, the complainant was also arrayed as non-petitioner No. 2. But his name was mentioned as Shri Kishan Lal Meena Masterji instead of Ram Kishan. Be that as it may, the notice has been properly served on him and no one has appeared on his behalf despite due service of notice on him and filing of power on his behalf.
5. I have therefore heard learned counsel for appellants and the learned P.P. for the State and have also perused the entire record as well as the orders under challenge.
6. Learned counsel for appellants has contended that it is well settled that in the event of acquittal of the accused, the property seized in the case should normally be returned to the person from whose possession it was recovered or who is entitled to its possession. In this regard reliance placed on the cases of ‘Lalluram Mohanlal v. State of Gujrat’ (1), and ‘Prithvi Raj v. State of Rajasthan’ (2).
7. Learned P.P. has supported the orders under challenge. He has strongly refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the cited authorities and the law laid down therein does not help the appellants in the instant case.
8. I have considered the submissions made at the bar.
9. Learned District & Sessions Judge who rejected the application of the appellants has relied upon the evidence of Sita Ram PW-9 who has stated that he had prepared those silver bangles for Late Mst. Kani and Badri Narain had come to him to get those bangles made for her. He has also stated that he had identified these bangles to be that of deceased Mst. Kani. These four silver bangles, two of feet and two of hands have been identified by Ram Kishan, Badri Narain, Jai Ram and Shri Narain before the learned Magistrate at test identification and they have stated that these bangles belong to deceased Mst. Kani. At the time of recovery of these bangles, Ganga Ram, one of the appellants, had himself stated that these bangles belong to the wife of Ram Kishan. Accused Kaliya @ Kaluram had stated before the Investigating Officer that he had mortgaged these bangles with Ganglya @ Gangaram. It was claimed before the trial court by Ganglya @ Gangaram that the silver bangles belong to his wife, but the trial court did not accept his version in the absence of any evidence of these bangles having been got made by him and any other documentary proof in support thereof whereas there was clear evidence of Sitaram PW-9 that these were made by him for Late Mst. Kani. The silver bangles were recovered from under a Neem three dumped in a pit at the instance of the accused as per his discovery statement. In these circumstances, the learned District & Sessions Judge found Ram Kishan, the husband of deceased Mst. Kani entitled to the possession of the bangles in question and accordingly rejected the application of the appellants.
10. I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the said order. If these bangles belonged to appellants Gangaram @ Ganglya, why these had been dumped in a pit under the Neem tree and why he did not dispute this fact at the time of recovery. On the contrary, he himself stated at the time of recovery that these bangles belonged to deceased wife of Ram Kishan.
11. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the case of acquittal of the accused normally the property seized in a case should be returned to the person from whose possession, it has been recovered or who is entitled to its possession. In the instant case, neither the appellants appear to be entitled to the possession as they have failed to prove that the property belonged to them nor it can be said to be recovered from their possession in their own right Kaluram @ Kaliya has not stated that these articles belonged to the appellants. On the contrary as per his discovery statement these articles were mortgaged by him with the appellant. So., they cannot be said to be the owners of these articles. At best, they can seek their remedy as against Kaluram @ Kaliya, if so advised. These articles cannot be said to belong to them. In the case of Prithvi Ram (supra), it is clearly mentioned that there may be cases where the facts and circumstances are such as would not be right to deliver the property to the accused because he is not the person entitled to possession. In that case return of the licensed gun alongwith its licence to the accused was justified. Thus, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Similarly, the facts of the case of Lallurarn (supra), are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as in that case the property was not found to be stolen which is not the case here. Both these authorities, therefore, do not help the appellant in the instant case.
12. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.