Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17866 of 2008 ====================================================== Smt.Ramawati Devi wife of Late Raghunath Sao, resident of Village- Madhepur, P.S. Madhupur, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Civil Supply 2. The Secretary, Department of Civil Supply, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani 4. The Circle Officer, Madhepur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. GA 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 4 29-11-2012 Years ago, a criminal writ, namely, CrWJC No.655 of 1993 was filed by one Raghunath Sao, the husband of the present petitioner. He died during pendency of that writ and, therefore, the widow was substituted. The writ application was disposed of on 16.12.1993. The significant part of the observation of the Division Bench is as under: “ ….Taking into account the interests of all parties including respondent no.4 and the State the appropriate course would be to direct that the seized foodgrains namely, 44 quintals 71 kgs. And 500 gms of rice be sold at the market price and to deposit the sale proceeds in treasury. We order accordingly. The sale will be subject to and abide by the result o the proceedings in the criminal/ confiscation case.” It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter vide a Patna High Court CWJC No.17866 of 2008 (4) dt.29-11-2012 2/ 2 2 judgment rendered by SDJM, Jhanjharpur dated 11.7.2007, son of the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges as the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge of theft read with [STATUTE] . Writ has now been filed in terms of the observation made by the Division Bench for refund of the money. The facts which have been noted by the Division Bench earlier in Annexure- 1 cannot be a subject matter of dispute nor can the finding rendered by the trial court in this regard. In view of the same, the petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case for a direction. The writ is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that she will file an application with the supporting materials before the Circle Officer, Madhepur, who thereafter will take steps for refund of the money which was deposited in the treasury after sell of the foodgrains to the extent indicated in the earlier quoted part of the order of the Division Bench. The exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of such an application. The writ is allowed as above. sk (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 411

Statute Text:
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.