Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dhanna Lal vs Ram Karan And Anr on 2 January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Dhanna Lal Vs. Ram Karan & State of Raj. S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 3926/2013. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.8.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.6, Kota in Cr. Revision No. 104/2012. Date of Order : 02nd January, 2014. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Mr Mukesh Sharma, for petitioner. Mr JR Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT
This petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 20.6.2012 passed by Addl. Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota whereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over 25 Quintal 70 Kg. Lentils to respondent No.1 on market value.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that an FIR No.18/1982 for the offence under Sections 379, 447 was registered at Police Station Sultanpur, Distt. Kota against respondent No.1. During the investigation, 25 Quintal 70 Kg. Lentils have been recovered from the possession of accused respondent No.1 Ram Karan and it was handed over to the present petitioner. After trial, respondent No.1 was acquitted and he moved an application for handing over the recovered Lentils to him on which impugned order has been passed. Hence this petition.
3. The only contention of the present petitioner is that physical possession of the recovered goods was never handed over to him. He has admitted the fact that interim custody of the goods was given to him. The contention of the present petitioner is that recovered goods were sold by Ram Karan himself without his knowledge and unnecessary penalty has been imposed on him to return the goods or market value which has increased much since the year 1982.
Per contra, the contention of the learned Public prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
4. In view of the fact that the present petitioner has been given interim custody of the recovered goods till the disposal of the case, it does not lie in the mouth of the present petitioner to say that physical possession of the goods were not handed over to him or the goods were sold by respondent No.1. The court below has considered the fact that interim custody was handed over to present petitioner and register of Malkahana has also been placed on record in which the Supardagi has been given to the present petitioner and when respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the offence, he is entitled for the recovered goods or the money equivalent to its worth, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. The present petitioner has already assailed the order by way of revision and this petition in the garb of second revision petition is not maintainable.
Hence the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(NISHA GUPTA),J.
Gandhi/- 46 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
BRIJ MOHAN (SR. P.A.)