JUDGMENT
N.L. Tiberwal, J.
1. Heard. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed under some peculiar circumstances.
2. On July 14, 85 when the petitioner Meena Kumariand Kumari Sunita were returning to their house after having Darshan of the temple “Mahakaleshwar at 9.00-10.00 a.m. the accused Mohammed Taiyab and Maharaj Singh Jatav Enatched golden chains from them by force. On making a cry, the villagers incident was lodged by Gopaldas at police station Sarmathura. The police registered the case for the offence Under Section 392, 394, & 307, IPC. After investigation a challan was filed against Mohammed Taiyab and two others in the court of the concerned Magistrate under various offences of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The co-accused Maharaj Singh was also arrested by the police and he got rocovered one golden chain after giving information Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It appears that he was also committed to the court of Sessions, but subsequently he absconded and his case was separated vide order dated 5.12.87.
3. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhotpur, in whose court, the acused Mohammed Taiyab and two others faced trial convicted the accused Mohammed Taiyab for the offence Under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated 23.12.88. Mohammed Taiyab was responsible for snatching the chain from Sunita Devi as such the trial court further directed that the said chain be returned to Sunita Devi. However, no order could be passed for the chain which was snatched from the petitioner Meena Kumari as the accused Maharaj Singh has absconded and the trial could not be furnished against him. The trial court had also directed to consign the record in the record-room.
4. It also appears that Maharaj Singh has not been absconded as yet. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application before the trial court with a prayer to deliver the golden chain, which was snatched from her neck by the co-accused Maharaj Singh, but the said prayer was declined on the ground that after the judgment was delivered on 23.12.88 the circumstances are the same. Since the petitioner has approached to this Court Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on 24.2.92, this Court had directed the learned P.P. to intimate the Court about the progress made by the police/prosecuting agency to arrest Maharaj Singh and whether there is any possibility of his arrest. The next date was fixed 23.3.92 for supplying the above information. On 23.3.92 the learned P.P. was unable to give the information and the Court again granted time to furnish the requisite information on the next date i.e. 13.4.92. On 13.4.92 the case could not be taken up and it was taken on 8.5.92. On this date, the P.P. intimated the Court that he did not receive any communication from the concerned SHO. It also appears that the PP was directed to make the SHO available in Court to convey the requisite information. After this date the case has been listed today. Today also the learned PP has no information with him. In such a state of affairs, the question arises what order should be passed by this Court ? How long a Court should await for the information, if the prosecuting agency or the PP did not supply the requisite information. Another question also arised whether the petitioner should wait for life long to get her chain simply because the accused Maharaj Singh is not being arrested by the police or there is little possibility of his arrest.
5. In such a situation I am of the view that the Court is not powerless and an appropriate order may be passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case the incident is of 14.7.85 and 7 years have already passed. The accused Maharaj Singh is absconding since 5.12.87. The learned PP is also unable to give any information as to whether there is any possibility of his arrest. He is not in a position to inform the Court as to whether Maharaj Singh is even alive or not. The chain has been recovered on the information given by the accused Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the saem has been identified by the petitioner in the identification parade as held before the Magistrate.
6. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, I am of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the gold chain in question, which is allged to have been recovered on the information of accused Maharaj Singh and which is lying in the Malkhana of the Court be given in the custody of the petitioner on the following conditions:
(i) That she shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of theAdditional District & Sessions Judge Dholpur for producing the said golden chain In Court as and when so directed;
(ii) That till further orders the golden chain in question shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of by her. The same shall be kept in the same position as it is delivered to her;
(iii) That before delivering the chain, an inventary shall be prepared giving all the details and special features of the chain if any, and Its weight. The approximate value of the chain shall also be got determined by the Court and two colour photograph of cabinet size shall be obtained and in the file of the case.