1 (Crim appln 637 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2008 Mahadeo Sukdeo Salunke ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.B.A.Lawate for Applicant Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for the State Mr.Shriram Choudhari i/b.Mr.Vishwanath S. Talkute for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 27TH SEPTEMER, , 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Original Accused No.2 2. This is an application for return of the property filed by the Applicant- Original Complainant during pendency of the appeal. 3. The prosecution case is that the Applicant is a 2 (Crim appln 637 of 2010) goldsmith and that on 21.10.2005 some persons came in the shop of the Applicant and one of the persons assaulted the Applicant with the point of knife on his head and they have snatched certain gold ornaments and those persons fled away on the motor cycle. A compliant was lodged. The Applicant gave the description of the articles to the police and thereafter, the accused were arrested and gold ornaments were recovered by the police. The said ornaments were identified by the Applicant -Original Complainant. The Trial Court convicted the accused nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 394 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for seven years. 4. The Learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, however, observed that the property should be returned to the complainant after the trial against absconding accused is over. It is submitted that the ornaments belong to the Complainant and ought to 3 (Crim appln 637 of 2010) have been returned to him. 5. In my view, the Trial Court obviously erred in not returning the property to the Original Complainant herein. The property has been identified by the Complainant and the description of the property was also given by him to the police. 6. This being the position, the actual physical presence of the ornaments was not necessary. There is no doubt that the said property is owned by the Applicant herein and it was taken away during the dacoit by the accused. 7. Under these circumstances, therefore, the application will have to be allowed. The Investigating Officer shall return the said ornaments to the Applicant herein. The Investigating Officer shall take photographs of the said ornaments and return the said property to the Applicant-Original Complainant. The Applicant shall execute an indemnity bond and 4 (Crim appln 637 of 2010) undertake the court that he shall produce the said ornaments as and when required in its original state. The said ornaments shall be returned after ascertaining the market value of the said gold through the competent goldsmith. Application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)