Partly allowed

Hindurao Maratha. v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC12 May 2015CRLA/21/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three appeals regarding disposal of recovered property after acquittal under Section 452 CrPC were partly allowed. The High Court remanded the matter to the lower court for an appropriate order on property disposal following an Apex Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the court below with direction to pass appropriate order regarding disposal of recovered property.

Hindurao Maratha. Vs State of Raj. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.518/1986 (Ramrakh Birla Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.21/1987 (Hindurao Maratha Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.22/1987 (Deep Chand Jain Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶4

Date of Order :: 12^th May, 2015

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

Mr. RP Vijay, counsel for the appellant(s) Dr. R.S. Shekkhawat, PP for the State

¶7

These three appeals have been filed against the order dated 22.10.1984 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 44/1973 regarding disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has contended that in this case, the FIR was registered at Police Station Anta, District Kota for the offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. Thereafter investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the trial was started and after completion of trial, the learned court below acquitted the accused persons, but no order regarding disposal of property was passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Baran, which was recovered from the accused persons. Hence either the property should be released or matter should be remanded to the court below with the direction to pass appropriate order regarding disposal of

¶9

property, which was recovered from the accused persons.

¶10

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan reported in 1990 (Suppl) Supreme court Cases 541 (II).

¶11

Learned PP for the State has opposed the same.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, the prayer of the counsel for the appellant(s) seems to be genuine.

¶13

Hence, all these appeals are partly allowed; and the matter is remanded to the court below with the direction that after affording opportunity of hearing, pass appropriate order regarding disposal of property, which was recovered from the accused persons, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Mahesh Kumar (supra).

¶14

Both the parties are directed to appear before the court below on 1.7.2015.

¶15

( Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J .

¶16

¶17

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶18

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Hindurao Maratha. v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindurao Maratha. v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Memuna Bewa Vs State and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Babulal and Ors. Vs State

Chhote Lal Vs State

Kamruddine and Ors. Vs State

Ramrakh Birla Vs State