THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.261 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case arises out of judgment dated 23.12.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the order of conviction and sentence dated 02.04.2004 in C.C.No.179 of 2003 passed by the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur was confirmed. 2. The Criminal Appeal was filed by one S.N. Agarwal, Proprietor of Capital Transport Organisation, Block No.2, Room No.9, Corporation Building, Chennai, Tamilnadu, who is not on the record in C.C.No.179 of 2003. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 30.8.2002 one Aslaram and Kuldeep brought the lorry HR/38/C/9258 with the load of Samsung Colour Televisions and on the way they parked the lorry with the load on N.H.5 road near Kopuravur village of Pedakakani P.S. limits and slept in the cabin of the lorry. At that time, the offenders stolen away 42 colour Televisions from the lorry worth of Rs.3,61,200/- . On 3.9.2002, they gave complaint to P.S. Pedakakani and a case in Crime No.147/02 was registered under Section 379 IPC and the Inspector of Police, Guntur Rural, conducted the investigation. During the course of investigation, he came to know that A1 to A3 made a confession of this offence in Crime No.119/2000 of Savaipet P.S. of Tamilnadu State. Then the Inspector of Police examined A1 to A3 and they again made confession that they along with 6 others committed the offence and stated they disposed of six Televisions to some unknown persons at the rate of Rs.6000/-. The other participants of the offence are absconding and they took away 33 Televisions. A1 met one of the participants of the offence-Prakash, who told him that he could not sell the Televisions and returned the same to A1. So, A1 took 16 Televisions to Guntur and made a false representation to one Maddi Suryanaraya Murthy that he is representative of Samsung Televisions company and that he was in urgent need of money and requested him to sell the Televisions at Rs.8,000/- each and offered to pay him Rs.300/- as commission and accordingly he sold the Televisions. Then Inspector of Police , Guntur Rural, recovered cash of Rs.1,29,600/- from Maddi Suryanarayana Murthy in the presence of one Nallapati Koteswara Rao and Vallabhapurapu Anjaiah under cover of Mahazar. The other participants of the offence are absconding with 17 Televisions. The remaining three Televisions were seized by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu State. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 and 2 on its behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and ordered to confiscate the cash of Rs.1,29,600/- including interest to the State. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court with regard to confiscation of case property, S.N.Agarwal, Proprietor of Capital Transport Organisation, Block No.2, Room No.9, Corporation Building, Chennai, Tamilnadu, who is not on the record in C.C.No.179 of 2003, filed the Criminal Appeal on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence brought on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the trial court confiscated three Televisions and cash of Rs.1,29,600/- instead of returning the same to the owner of the Capital Transport Organisation as the offence took place when he was transporting 42 Samsung Televisions from Chennai to Vijayawada. After he came to know about confiscation, he approached the trial court by filing petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and the same was returned. Since the goods lost in transit, he is the proper person to claim the property which is confiscated to State. 8. A perusal of the record goes to show that one Aslaram, who is driver of the Truck H.R.38/G/9258 gave a complaint to the Police that 42 colour Televisions of Samsung company were stolen from his vehicle which he brought from Chennai to be transported at godown of M/s.Samsung India Electronics, Vijayawada. Ex.P1 report indicates that the vehicle was loaded with 263 Televisions from the factory of M/s.Samsung India Electronics Limited, at Greater Noida to deliver the same to their south RDC, Chennai and they got all the said Televisions unloaded and sum were reloaded to be transported to the godown of Samsung at Vijayawada. At the outset, it is seen that the revision petitioner is not a party to the C.C. before the trial court. The revision petitioner has not filed any proof to show that he is the owner of the lost goods. The appellate court observed that the Xerox copy of the document filed before it shows that the goods are at owner’s risk. Further, there is no evidence to show that he paid the price of the goods lost in the transit to the real owner. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the revision petitioner is only a transporter and he is not entitled to claim the confiscated property. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the trial court does not appear to be erroneous, irregular or misconceived, and as such the same does not warrant interference in any manner from this revisional court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -07.2010 Stp