STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARESHBHAI ALIAS NARANBHAI JIVANJIBHAI HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No. 6 of 1987 before the City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad respondent No. 1 Nareshbhai was charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 380 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 Kalpanaben the daughter of the complainant was charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 3 - Ramniklal is the goldsmith who had purchased the stolen ornaments. He was not charged for any offence before the trial Court but he is joined as a party-respondent as the learned Sessions Judge has ordered that muddamal article No. 1 which is the golden ingot be handed over to him as he has purchased it bona fide by paying full market price to respondent No. 1 Naresh. By the judgment and order dated 9/02/1987 the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code but had acquitted the respondent No. 1 for the offences for which he was charged. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the State has filed this appeal against the impugned order of the learned Judge for return of muddamal article to respondent No. 3 - Ramniklal Jashraj Soni.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is on the face of it illegal and erroneous and without application of mind on his part inasmuch as the learned Judge has not held any enquiry under Sec. 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code before passing the order. He also submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge directing the return of muddamal ingot to respondent No. 3 is even otherwise illegal.

(3.) In this case it is a proved fact that respondent No. 2 committed theft of golden chain and other articles from the trunk of her mother. For the offence of committing theft respondent No. 2 is convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. However the learned Judge has passed the order that as Soni Ramniklal has purchased the golden chain by paying full market price to respondent No. 1 Naresh the said muddamal article should be handed over to Ramnikbhai. In our view this order of the learned Judge is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. Once it is proved that respondent No. 3 has purchased the stolen article then the stolen article is required to be returned to its original owner. Purchaser of the stolen article would not get any title over the property inspite of the fact that he had purchased it bona fide by paying full market price.