Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The accused was sentenced by the Trial Court to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The said order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in appeal. Hence it needs hardly be stated that the order dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the Lower Court resulted in confirming the order relating to disposal of the property passed by the learned trial Magistrate. In the present revision application, various point have been urged on behalf of the accused before me. But before dealing with the various points I must state that Shri Chitnis the learned Advocate appearing for the accused had made it clear before me that his present revision application was confined only to the order of conviction and sentence and that he would not make any grievance about the order of disposal of Muddemal property. In fact he made it clear that even if the present revision application was to be allowed by this Court on any ground whatsoever he would not ask for any order from this Court affecting the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and which was confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in relation to the disposal of the Muddamal property. Mr. Chitnis made it clear on behalf of his client that even if the revision application was allowed, still the disposal of muddamal property should be made in accordance with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in that behalf. In fact his client has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court giving an undertaking to this Court that irrespective of the result of the revision application, the disposal of the muddamal property before the Court should be made and should be allowed to be made strictly in accordance with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Moreover, he has further stated that he was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in this Court for being paid to P.W. 4, namely Adbulla Mohamad Sale Zatem, who had come to the Court with the grievance that his ornaments worth about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1500/- were not returned by the accused to him in spite of the fact that the amount of loan stood fully repaid. I may further state that the petitioner was allowed to deposit the said amount in this Court and accordingly he in fact deposited the said amount in this Court with a statement that the same was deposited for being paid to P.W. 4, Abdulla Mohamed Sale Zatem. The said statement has been duly recorded and the affidavit filed by the petitioner in that behalf has been taken on record.