Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jitendra Shantilal Thalesar, was the original complainant in Sessions Case No.578 of 1991 arising from Crime No.428 of 1990 registered at L.T. Marg police station. The case involved a robbery at his jewellery shop on 27th October 1990, where gold ornaments and cash of Rs.10,000 were stolen at gunpoint by three armed persons. During investigation, five accused were charge-sheeted, but four absconded, leaving only one for trial. The appellant filed Misc. Application No.688 of 1995 seeking return of all seized articles, including Article 30 (a 'U' shape gold necklace and a small piece of 300 mg gold). Respondent no.2, Sadashiv Rangnath Thorat, who was examined as P.W.13, also filed Misc. Application No.750 of 1995 claiming return of Article 30, alleging he purchased it for value from Santosh Shetty, one of the absconding accused, and was a bona fide purchaser. The trial court, by order dated 28th September 1995, granted custody of Article 30 to respondent no.2 on certain conditions, ignoring the appellant's claim of ownership based on evidence that the article was made from parts of the robbed ornaments. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court, per P.D. Kode, J., allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and directing return of Article 30 to the appellant. The court held that the trial court erred in preferring custody based on prior possession during investigation without properly considering the evidence of theft and the appellant's ownership.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Disposal of Property - Section 452 CrPC - Ownership Dispute - The court considered the rival claims of the appellant (original complainant) and respondent no.2 (witness) over Article 30, a gold necklace and small piece of gold. The appellant claimed it was made from parts of ornaments robbed from his shop, while respondent no.2 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value from an absconding accused. The trial court had granted custody to respondent no.2 based on prior custody during investigation. The High Court held that the trial court erred in ignoring the evidence that the article was stolen property and that the appellant's ownership was established. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed return of Article 30 to the appellant. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in granting custody of Article 30 (gold necklace and small piece of gold) to respondent no.2 instead of the appellant, who claimed ownership based on evidence that the article was made from parts of ornaments robbed from his shop.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 28th September 1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.578 of 1991 is set aside. Article 30 (U shape gold necklace and small piece of 300 mg gold) shall be returned to the appellant.
Law Points
- Disposal of property under Section 452 CrPC
- Ownership based on evidence of theft
- Bona fide purchaser for value
- Custody during investigation not determinative of ownership
