Criminal Revision Application No.206 of 1992

9th July, 1997

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R.R. SALVI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. D.T. PALEKAR, Mr. S.R. CHITNIS

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Salvi for the petitioner and Mr.D.T. Palekar for the Respondent No.1. Although the matter is on the board of this court since long, Mr.S.R. Chitnis, counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent. Consequently, I have decided the matter with the assistance of learned counsel present.

By this revision application, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 17.7.1992, passed by the VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 1989, whereby that part of the order dated 20th September, 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Pune, directing the Muddemal property to be given to the complainant Shrikrishna Laxman Gadgil, was confirmed. The relevant facts shortly stated are as under :-

The complainant Shrikrishna Laxman Gadgil has a shop of silver and gold at Narayan Peth, Pune. On 5.2.1985, the complainant received message from Abasaheb Garware on telephone that he wanted 22 tolas of gold which would be collected by his P.A. Mr. K.S. Joshi (Original accused) and the cheque would be sent thereafter. At about 11.30 a.m., the original accused came and the complainant handed over to him 21 gold rings and one Got. Thereafter, the complainant waited for two days for cheque from Abasaheb Garware and when he did not receive the same, he telephonically contacted him. At that time, Abasaheb Garware's P.A. informed him that no one was sent by them to take delivery of the gold. The complainant realised that he had been cheated but did not lodge his F.I.R. because he did not want to damage the reputation of Absaheb Garware. On 20.6.1987 or 22.6.1987, the complainant read a news in a daily newspaper 'Sakal' about the arrest of S.K. Joshi who had cheated Nagarkar Saraf by impersonating himself as P.A. of Abasaheb Garware. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint with the police after about 2.1/2 years of the incident.

2. During the course of investigation, S.K. Joshi (Original accused) was arrested and he informed the police that he had sold the said gold to one Mahendra Chavan (Original petitioner). Consequently, police went to the shop of Mahendra Chavan and recovered two gold ingots therefrom.

3. In due course, K.S. Joshi was put up for trial. The trial court acquitted him primarily on the ground that there was inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. and since he was unknown to the complainant, he should have been put up for identification. It appears that during the trial, the petitioner claimed the gold recovered to be his while the case of the complainant was that the gold recovered was the one which had been given by him to K.S. Joshi on 5.2.85 and thereafter, the said gold was converted into two ingots. Consequently, the trial court was called upon to decide the question as to who was entitled to the gold. The trial court primarily for the reasons contained in paras 29 and 30 of its judgment, directed that the said gold be handed over to the original complainant, Shrikrishna Laxman Gadgil. Perusal of paragraphs 29 and 30 would show that Mahendra Chavan could not produce any stock register of his shop to show that the gold was taken by the police. On the other hand, the complainant Shrikrishna Gadgil had produced registers Exhibits 15 and 16 which show that 220 grams of gold was sold to Babasaheb Garware and the receipt Exhibit 14 was executed by K.S. Joshi who took the said gold from the complainant's shop.

4. The trial court was also persuaded to pass the said order because inspite of opportunity being given to the petitioner to produce the documents in respect of gold which he was claiming, he could not produce any document to show his ownership of gold. Further, the case of the petitioner that the police officers had taken away the said gold from him did not appear to be convincing to the trial court because the petitioner did not lodge any complaint.

5. The appellate court in appeal filed by the petitioner also found the order of the trial court to be just and proper.

6. In my view, the considerations which weighed with the trial court for handing over the gold to the complainant were weighty.

7. It needs to be emphasized that I am seized of the matter in my revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that in the said jurisdiction, this court only interferes if there is any illegality in the impugned order or it is perverse. I do not find the orders of the courts below to be vitiated by any illegality or perversity. In my view, the order of the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court was absolutely correct on the facts of the case and merits no interference.

8. In the result, this revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order is vacated.

Application dismissed.