(2).The facts of the case are that in the year 2008-09 the Government of India authorized the firm Amit Kumar Atul Kumar Gautampura to buy wheat for FCI.On 29.04.2008 Mr. Amit Kumar and Ashish purchased 340 sacks of wheat from the farmers and it was loaded in a Truck bearing registration No.MP-09-K-1799 for sending it to Laxmibai Central Warehouse Indore.The truck was driven by Prakash and one Nilesh was cleaner of the vehicle.When at about 12:30 am the truck reached between Agra and Ushapura, one white Maruti van without having any registration number came from behind and stood in the middle of the road, this forced the driver to stop his truck.Thereafter 5-7 persons came out of the Maruti Van and 2 they entered into the truck from both the sides.One of them pulled the driver out and he started driving the truck.They also threatened to kill the driver Prakash.When the truck reached Khajuriya then culprits shifted the driver and cleaner into Maruti Van and they took the Maruti van towards Aerodrum.They took the driver and cleaner to the field and tied them with a rope and left from there threatening to kill them.Thereafter Prakash and Nilesh opened the rope and reached Lebad where they informed the incident to Yashpal through public telephone.Then they reported the matter to the police station Depalpur and lodged FIR (Ex-14).(14/01/2020) The applicant has preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by Third Additional Session Judge, Indore in MJC No.9114/2017 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 451 & 452 of Cr.p.C. has been rejected by which they prayed for interim custody of seized property (340 sacks of wheat).(3).During the investigation police arrested the applicants and on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, recovered 200 sacks of wheat from Vasudev, 100 sacks from Baliram and 7 sacks from Rajesh.Thereafter police apprehended the Lakhan, Liladhar and Gabbar and on the basis of information given by Liladhar 10 sacks of wheat was seized from him.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused person before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session and after completion of trial applicants and other co-accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 395, 365, 506-B and 412 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 3 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.However, the trial court directed to hand over the seized wheat to its owner.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicants preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C.(4).This order was challenged by the complainant in revision petition No.351/2008 filed before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2008 and complainant was directed to file fresh application before the trial court for getting interim custody of the wheat.Revisional court also ordered that any objection raised by the present applicants in relation to the application will be considered by the trial court.But complainant did not complied with the said order then the applicants moved an application before the trial court on 24.08.2009 for interim custody of seized property but it was not decided and kept pending.The trial court vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 directed that the seized property will remain in the custody of the complainant which already given to the complainant in interim custody.It is further submitted that from very beginning of the investigation and trial the applicants were claiming seized property stating that they are the owner of the said property.But the trial court did not consider the facts and even without deciding the pending application of the applicants pass a final judgment and orders to return the seized property to the complainant.Hence, learned counsel for the applicants prays for setting aside the impugned order and prayed that seized property (340 sacks) be handed over to the applicants.(5).Learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding given by the trial court regarding the custody of seized property and prays for dismissal of the petition.(6).From perusal of the record of the trial court, it 5 appears that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur vide its order dated 30.06.2008 allowed the application filed by the complainant for taking the seized wheat in interim custody and direct the police to hand over 50 quintal of seized wheat to complainant M/s Amit Kumar Atul Kumar and in compliance of the aforesaid order the wheat was given to Vijay Kumar Jhajri on supurdginama.Thus, it is clear that the wheat was already handed over to the complainant party on supurdginama by the trial court and revisional court has not recall its interim order dated 24.05.08 regarding interim custody of wheat, therefore, the complainant party has not filed fresh application for getting of the seized wheat on Supurdginama.(7).Although the applicants moved an application before the Court of Third Additional Session Judge, Indore for granting interim custody of the wheat but this application has not been decided by the trial court and the order-sheet does not disclose that any point of time the counsel for the applicants had prayed for hearing the aforesaid application.After completion of the trial though accused persons were acquitted however seized property (wheat) was directed to 6 return to the complainant party.(8).From the perusal of the record of the trial court it does not reflect that applicants/accused did not make any claim in their examination recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they are the owner of the seized wheat, to contrary they have denied the seizure of the wheat from their possession.They also not filed any documents to establish that they are the owner of the seized property.The applicants and other co-accused have been acquitted by the trial court only on the basis that the prosecution has failed to establish that the wheat has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, merely on the ground that during, the trial applicants have filed an application for interim custody of the seized wheat, it cannot be said that they are entitled to get seized property after completion of the trial.Hence, the present appeal filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c4547 15d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d NAYAK 05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.01.31 13:44:10 -12'00'

Relevant sections: Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code