IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.196 of 2011. Decided on: August 19, 2011. ____________________________________________________________ Nand Lal @ Nand Kishore. ……..Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Kn. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral) : Failing to get the release of the case property i.e. 9.85 quintals of copper wire, applied vide application registered as Cr.M.A. No.22-S/4 of 2011, decided on 23.4.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 2. Record of the learned trial Court was requisitioned and the learned counsel for the parties agreed that this matter can be disposed of finally at this stage, as such it was heard and gone through the record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. In Sessions Trial No. 10-NL-7 of 2008 Vikrant alias Vicky alongwith 12 other accused persons faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 395 and 411 of the Indian penal Code in case FIR No.153/07 dated 20.8.2007, registered in Police Station Baddi, for committing dacoity of the copper wire in the shape of spools from a factory at Baddi. 4. The accused persons were acquitted vide its detailed judgment dated 31.7.2009 by the learned trial Court as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond doubt against them and ordered to confiscate the copper wire aforesaid to the State. 5. The appellant herein, after about two years of judgment of acquittal vide his application instituted on 24.2.2011 before the learned trial Court claimed and sought the release of the case property on the ground that Dharam Pal one of the co-accused is his brother and the copper wire which was taken by the police belonged to him. It was also contended that the case property was wrongly confiscated to the State, hence sought its release. 6. To show his ownership, the appellant placed on record Annexure P-3 photocopy of Bill dated - 3 - 19.11.2007, whereby M/s N.K. Tradering Company had purchased 1011.190 Kgs of copper wire from ‘Maa Vaishno Cotspin Ltd.’, but the learned trial Court declined his request for release, on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that he was the owner of the said Tradering Company and also that the case property already stood confiscated to the State vide its detailed judgment, which cannot be reviewed. 7. It is pertinent to note that with respect to the dacoity of 10 spools of copper wire valuing about `32,000/-, FIR aforesaid was lodged on 20.9.2007, but the cash memo against which M/s N.K. Tradering Company is stated to have purchased the copper wire is dated 19.11.2007 i.e. two months of the alleged incident. The recovery was effected from accused Dharam Pal on 23.11.2007 vide memo Ext.PW4/A from the Plot No.591, Phase-II, Chandigarh Industrial Area. Neither the appellant nor the said accused claimed and produced any purchase voucher to claim it during trial. 8. Further, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Question No.21 put - 4 - to accused Dharam Pal, he stated that the aforesaid copper wire was taken into possession by the police from his work-shop, but he no where stated that it belonged to his brother or that it was lying in the premises of his brother. The Bill aforesaid appears to be a got up one, which could not be connected to the copper wire in question, therefore, it cannot be released to the appellant as he is not found entitled for its best possession. Therefore, appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. Cr.M.P. No.409 of 2011. 9. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, this application has become infructuous. 10. The matter stands disposed of. Send down the record. August 19, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.