M.B. Sharma, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of all the three above numbered revision petitions, as they arise out of the same F.I.R.
(2.) Revision Petition No. 45/1988 has been filed by Bhanwar Singh and under challenge in the aforesaid revision is the judgment dated 27th October 1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, against the acquittal of the accused non-petitioners Gopal, Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramchandra, Bhanwar Lal S/o Vishna and Kajod. The learned Sessions Judge under his judgment dated 27th October 1987 acquitted the above named accused non-petitioners of the charge u/s 403 I. P. C. and the conviction and sentence awarded to each of them was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge also disposed of the appeal No. 10/1986 filed by Babulal in respect of custody of the property. Against the aforesaid order. Babulal has filed a revision petition in this court registered as criminal revision petition No.289/ 1987. Revision petition 50/1988 has been filed by Mahant Raghunath Jat claiming himself to be a 'Mahant' of math Sakhana, village Sakhua, Police Station Mehand-was, District Tonk and has been filed against the order of the learned Appellate Court under which while dismissing the appeal of Kailash and the appeal of Babulal in respect of custody of the property, the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
(3.) The prosecution story is that a complaint was filed by Bhanwar Singh in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Tonk against the accused non-petitioners and others including one Kailash. As per the facts contained in the aforesaid complaint, the accused non-petitioners Gopal, Bhanwar Lal S/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwar Lal S/o Vishna & Kajod hatched a criminal conspiracy and as such the ornaments and other valuables of Math sankhna village Sakhua (sor short the'Math') were mortgaged with one Kanwarilal Bhanwari Lal and a criminal breach of trust was committed. In the complaint the details of the ornaments were also made and are contained in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the Appellate Court. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the police station, where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. During the investigation on the information of one Bhanwarlal S/o Ramchandra some property alleged to be of math'was recovered. Similarly on the information of the other accused persons, some other stolen property was recovered. So far as one Kailash accused is concerned, he made more than one statement u/sand one information was related to the piece of gold weighing 9 tola 7 anas and the said piece of gold was recovered from one B.L. Tikkiwal. Though the learned trial court had convicted the accused-non-petitioners also but the learned Appellate Court did not place reliance on the alleged recovery from the accused persons and acquitted them. The learned court has aid that even Mihant Raghunath in his statement before the court has not stated that the articles which were recovered from the accused non-petitioners belonged to Math. It can not be said that they were stolen property. The learned court has also stated that no stolen properties were recovered from the accused non-petitioners. I am of the opinion that so far as the accused non-petitioners is concerned, the view taken by the learned court cannot be said to be perverse and no interference is called for.;