Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal writ petition filed by Pandit Digamber Udawant (petitioner) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging an order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.211/2005. The background is that respondent No.2, Wahid Qureshi, lodged a complaint on 19.04.2005 at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, alleging housebreaking and theft of three golden ornaments weighing 50 grams and cash of Rs.17,000/-. An offence under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered as CR No.86/2005. During investigation, two persons were arrested and disclosed that they had sold the stolen gold ornaments to the petitioner. Consequently, a golden chip weighing 130 grams was seized from the petitioner's shop. After charge sheet was filed, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 filed applications for return of the property. The 4th JMFC, Aurangabad, by order dated 03.10.2005, directed return of the property to respondent No.2 on his executing a Supurdnama and depositing 50% of the value of the muddemal property in cash. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.211/2005 before the Sessions Court, which modified the order by directing return of 50 grams of gold to respondent No.2 and 80 grams to the petitioner on Supurdnama. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this order, filed the present writ petition. The legal issue was whether the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser of the stolen gold, was entitled to the return of the property in preference to the original owner. The petitioner argued that he had purchased the gold in good faith without knowledge of the theft and was a bona fide purchaser for value. Respondent No.2 contended that he was the original owner and entitled to the return of his stolen property. The court analyzed the facts and held that the petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, had a superior claim. The court noted that respondent No.2 had failed to exercise due diligence in safeguarding his property, whereas the petitioner had acted in the ordinary course of business. The court upheld the Sessions Court's order and dismissed the petition, directing that the gold be returned as per the earlier order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Return of Property - Section 451 CrPC - Competing Claims - The court considered the competing claims of the original owner (respondent No.2) and the bona fide purchaser (petitioner) over gold ornaments seized in a theft case. The petitioner had purchased the gold from the accused without knowledge of the theft. The court held that the petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, has a superior claim and directed return of 80 grams of gold to the petitioner on Supurdnama, while 50 grams was ordered to be returned to respondent No.2. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Bona Fide Purchaser - Section 451 CrPC - Due Diligence - The court observed that the original owner (respondent No.2) failed to exercise due diligence in safeguarding his property, whereas the petitioner purchased the gold in the ordinary course of business. The court emphasized that a bona fide purchaser without notice of the theft is entitled to retain the property as against the original owner who was negligent. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of stolen gold ornaments, is entitled to return of the seized property in preference to the original owner (respondent No.2) who had lodged the complaint of theft.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.211/2005 is upheld. The gold ornaments shall be returned as per the said order: 50 grams to respondent No.2 and 80 grams to petitioner on Supurdnama.
Law Points
- Return of property under Section 451 CrPC
- Bona fide purchaser for value without notice
- Competing claims over stolen property
- Supurdnama
- Due diligence
