Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G. A. appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) A theft was committed in the shop of the petitioner on 24.6.2001, in which a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and jewelry of seven to eight lakhs was stolen. Within three months, the police succeeded and arrested two persons and recovered cash and gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner. A test identification etc. was conducted wherein articles were identified by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, for releasing the property in his favour. Vide order dated 18.12.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur has released the property in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the order passed by the learned C.J.M., Sitapur on 18.12.2002, has been annexed as Annexure 7, to the writ petition. In the year 2003, the petitioner was directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, to produce the property in the Court and, accordingly, the same was produced by the petitioner and was taken in the custody. On 19.1.2006, the trial in respect of two accused persons ended in conviction while two other persons who absconded during the trial, were summoned. On 16.2.2006, the petitioner filed an application before the C.J.M., Sitapur, for releasing the property in his favour and passed similar order, which was passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 18.12.2002. The petitioner submitted another application on 29.3.2006. Both the applications have been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.5.2006. In these applications, same submissions were made which were considered by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, while passing its order for releasing the property on 18.12.2002.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943, Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and has drawn attention of the Court towards paras 11,12, 13 and 21. The petitioners case is covered by this judgment.;