1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2005 IN MISC. APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2004 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 1484 OF 1995 Behrulal Devilal Kothari. ... Appellant. V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mrs. Asha Nair i/b. Mahesh Menon & Co. For the Appellant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th JULY 2008. P.C. :- Being agrieved by the order dated 23rd December 2004 whereby the request of the Applicant for return of property was rejected, the Applicant has approached this Court under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. One Sagarmal Jain and Sandip Kuware were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 412 and 414 of I.P.C. 2 respectively on the allegations that said Sagarmal received the stolen property and the same had been transferred by the commission of dacoity as stolen property. 2. The case was, on 31st January 1991 at about 3.20 p.m. six persons entered shop of Dedhia Jewellers Laxminarayan Lane, Matunga, Mumbai and at the Jewellery Shop dacoity of gold ornaments worth Rs.59 lakhs and cash of Rs.95,000/- was committed giving rise to F.I.R. vide C.R.No.113 of 1991 for the offence punishable under Section 395, 397 r/w. 3(25) of the Arms Act. As stated earlier, the accused No.5 Sagarmal was referred as purchaser of the stolen property as he runs the Jewellers Shop under the name and style "Sapana Jewellers" at Bhandup. During trial, at the instance of said Sagarmal certain ornaments were taken charge under the panchanama (Exhibit 34) and (Exhibit 35). The application for return of property being Application No. S.C. 28 of 1994 was moved in which necessary directions were passed for return of property. In fact, the present Applicant had the remedy to challenge the said order in which his rights were involved. However, for the 3 reasons best known, he waited till disposal of the case and passing of order dated 23rd December 2004. 3. The Judgment of the learned Sessions Court indicate that the present Applicant did not support prosecution and did not refer that the Accused Sagarmal is the person who sold the property to him or at his instance he has purchased the property which is the subject of the present application. He has virtually disputed recovery of property from him. 4. The claim of the learned Advocate for the Applicant that since the property was taken charge from him, he is entitled in law to receive the same, it is not legally correct as there is virtually no evidence rendered by the Applicant showing that he was lawfully entitled to return the property at the material time or he was the owner of the property. On the other hand, the owners of M/s. Dedhia Jewellers has produced relevant record vide vouchers and account showing the property mark of their shop and consequently the learned Sessions Judge allowed handing over property referred at Articles 42, 4 44,45,48,49,50 and 55. As regards other properties are concerned, since there was order in S.C.No.828 of 1994, the learned Sessions Judge could not pass detailed order in respect of disposal of other case. However, he has while dealing with the other Applicant extensively pointed out the role of the Applicant. Delay of 13 years in making the application as the incident was taken place on 10.3.1991, while said application for seeking the property on 7.8.2004 is a fetal blow. The bald claim of the applicant that he was apprehending arrest from Police or Police threatened him is a misplaced claim which cannot be legally sustained. It is pertinent that the applicant while adducing the evidence on behalf of the prosecution in the Sessions Case did not at any stage referred that the property belong to him and he had no concern with Sagarmal, the stand taken by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Judge during trial was, as if he does not know anything. 5. If the Applicant is legally entitled to the property, which at this stage is difficult to digest, he has civil remedies to adopt as he has to establish entitlement to the property which, even after giving 5 opportunity before the Sessions Court, the Applicant could not discharge. 6. In the set of above facts, I do not see any merit in the application for return of property. Hence, no interference required. The Appeal is accordingly rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)