Arun Madan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and also perused the impugned-orders dated 7.2.96 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur in FIR No. 349/95 and dated 3.7.96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 15/96 whereby, the Revisional Court had set-aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and JM No. 9. Jaipur dated 7.2.96 directing that the seized articles be handed over to the respondent-Mukesh Kumar Sharma on his furnishing Superdiginama which is a subject-matter of challenge in the instant revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the seized articles be returned to him being the father of the deceased - Bina as he had given these articles in dowry to his daughter.
(2.) Prima-facie, I am of the view that since the cognizance has already been taken by the trial Court against the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC while the charge for the offence under Section 304B IPC is yet to be established and cognizance for the said offence has not yet been taken by the trial Court, I deem it appropriate to direct that the seized articles which have already been directed to be returned to the non-petitioner No. 3 - Mukesh Kumar Sharma by the Revisional Court, the same shall remain in his interim custody pending trial before the trial Court subject to his furnishing solvent security against the value of the seized articles as indicated in the Superdiginama if not has already been furnished to the trial Court concerned and subject to fulfillment of other relevant conditions if not has already been complied with by the non-petitioner No.3-Mukesh Kumar Sharma. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a proper application before the trial Court for the return of articles and if the trial Court finally arrives at the conclusion subject to the satisfactory proof of lawful claim of the petitioner for the return of articles, may at its discretion return the articles to the petitioner if so warranted in accordance with law The trial Court is directed to expeditiously deal with and decide the proceedings at the earliest.
(3.) With the above observations, the revision petitions stands finally disposed of. Petition disposed of as above.;