HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3041 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 02-07-2008 passed in Crl.R.P. No.16 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent- State. 3. The petitioner herein was examined as PW.4 in Sessions Case No.355 of 1996. The brief facts of the case are as follows : On the intervening night of 20/21-06-1989 a dacoity took place in the house of the petitioner and others and some property was stolen. The police registered a case in Crime No.26 of 1989 under Section 395 I.P.C. and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against A-1 to A- 11. However, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad by his order dated 14-08-1996 made in P.R.C. No.14 of 1989 committed the case to the Sessions Court against A-1 and A-10 only. The said case was numbered as Sessions Case No.355 of 1996 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Then, trial proceeded against A- 1 and A-10, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, the petitioner herein was examined as PW.4 and Exs.P-1 to P-4 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. The stolen property of the petitioner was marked as M.Os.1 to 4. After conclusion of the trial, A-1 and A-10 were acquitted by judgement in S.C. No.355 of 1996 and accordingly M.O.s 1 to 4 were ordered to be returned to the Petitioner. Then, the Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2008 under Section 452 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad seeking to return his stolen property i.e. M.Os.1 to 4. However, the said petition was dismissed on 19-02- 1998. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P. No.16 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge holding that the case against other accused i.e. A-2 to A-9 and A-11 was not yet disposed of and unless the separated case is disposed of the property cannot be returned, holding so, he dismissed the said petition. Challenging the said Criminal Revision Petition, this Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order. 4. It has to be seen that the alleged offence took place in the intervening night on 20/21-06-1989. The judgement in Sessions Case No.355 of 1996 was pronounced on 09-03-1998. Admittedly, after about a decade from the date of said judgement, 13 years period is elapsed. There is nothing on record to show that any efforts have been made to apprehend the other accused i.e. A-2 to A-9 and A-11. There is no hope of apprehending those accused persons and proceeding against them. As seen from the judgement in S.C. No.355 of 1996, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, observed that the evidence of PW.1 is based only on information about the offence. The evidence of PW.2 shows that on the date of offence, 12 persons came and enquired about the shop of Polishettiwar Rajeshwer, then the culprits threatened them and went away towards the house of the said Rajeshwer. He has deposed that he came to know that the culprits committed dacoity in the shop of said Rajeshwer and in the house of G. Madhukar. He further deposed that he cannot identify the culprits. PW.3 also deposed that though he deposed about the commission of the offence but categorically stated that he cannot identify those culprits. Similarly, the evidence of PW.4 also reveals that after hearing the sounds of throwing stones he ran away. Thus after appreciating the entire evidence, A-1 and A-10 were acquitted. Even the charge sheet allegations as seen from the judgement in Sessions Case No.355 of 1996 do not reveal that any identification parade was conducted. 5. It is to be seen that no punch witness for the stolen property was examined before the Court. Then, there is no possibility of even proving the alleged offence under Sections 411 or 412 I.P.C. Since the alleged offence took place about 22 years ago and the split up judgement in S.C. No.355 of 1996 was pronounced about 13 years ago and there is no possibility of arresting the absconding accused and even if they are arrested, there is remote possibility of convicting those accused persons, I consider it just and reasonable to allow this petition. It may result in doing great injustice to the parties if the stolen ornaments are not returned to the victims even after 22 years after the date of offence. No useful purpose will be served by keeping those ornaments in the custody of the Court. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 02-07-2008 passed in Crl.R.P. No.16 of 2008 and M.Os.1 to 4 shall be returned to the petitioner on furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for the like sum and on giving an undertaking that the petitioner shall return those items as and when required by the Court. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 22-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 133 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3041 OF 2009 Date:22-12-2011 DSH.