Kundan Singh - (1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by applicant Bhim Sen for quashing of the order of learned Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1981 directing the bullocks to be returned to Dev Singh opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that the bullocks of the applicant were thieved and he bdged a report about that theft. THE bullocks were recovered from the possession of the accused and he was prosecuted and charged under Section 411, I.P.C. THE lower court found him guilty of the charge levelled against him and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced. On appeal by the accused opposite party, he was acquitted and the bullock were directed to be returned to accused opposite parity No. 2 on the assumption that the bullocks were taken into custody from the possession of Devi Singh accused hence he was entitled to the custody of the bullocks as owner. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the bullocks belonged to the applicant and he was not a party in the appeal. In his absence the order of return of the bullocks in favour of the opposite party No. 2 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. THE order is, therefore, is bad and is illegal hence liable to be quashed. THE opposite party filed counter-affidavit and in Paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit he has asserted that the applicant could have approached this court in revision against the order of acquittal and that was only the proper forum to redress his grievance. I have given my anxious thought to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the relevant papers. It is a case of 1982. The bullocks may or may not be alive this time. The applicant has not been given opportunity to prove his ownership whereas the prosecution against opposite party No. 2 was launched at his instance and the bullocks were also recovered from the possession of the opposite party No. 2 at his pointing out. He was also found guilty of the offence charged with. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant the order releasing the bullocks in favour of the opposite party has been passed. The order is certainly bad and is not maintainable in eyes of law. However, the disputed property of the present case are bullocks which may or may not be alive after a distance of 13 years. In facts and circumstances the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal directing return of the bullock to opposite party No. 2 is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the ownership of bullocks aforesaid afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant and pass appropriate order regarding redease of the stolen bullocks or the price thereof in favour of the applicant if ultimately he is held to be owner of the stolen bullocks.
(3.) WITH the observation above, this application stands disposed of. A certified copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the applicant within one week on payment of usual charges. Application disposed of accordingly.;