IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1123 OF 2004 BETWEEN: M/s. Meenakshi General Stores, represented by its Partner. …PETITIONER AND Sri Ramachandram and others. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1123 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner in this revision is a third party to C.C.No. 66 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Cases, Kamareddy. 2. A case under Section 379 or 411 Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) was filed by the State against seven accused. Through the judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted A-1 to A-6 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. He also convicted A-7 for the offence under Section 411 IPC. The accused were sentenced to various jail terms. M.O.7 in the case is cash of Rs.2,58,000/-. Through the judgment, the trial Court directed to return of M.O.7 to PW-1 after appeal time. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 preferred Criminal Appeal 61 of 2001 and A-7 preferred Criminal Appeal 62 of 2001 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Both the criminal appeals were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge through a common judgment. The appellate Court however confirmed the order of the trial Court relating to the disposal of M.O.7, viz., that M.O.7 shall be returned to PW-1. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner, who is the claim petitioner, filed this revision seeking for refund of M.O.7 cash to it. 3. The partner of the petitioner firm, who laid the present revision, was examined as DW-1 before the trial Court. 4. The cash constituting M.O.7 was seized by Police from the shop of the revision petitioner. PW-1 is the Regional Manager of APSRTC. The case of the prosecution inter alia is that the vehicle bearing registration No.AAT 2917 was loaded with cigarette boxes, and that there was pilferage of the goods by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that part of the booty was M.O.7, and that M.O.7 consequently belonged to PW-1. 5. While disposing of the case by the trial Court, it was considered that PW-1 is entitled to the cash covered by M.O.7. It may be noticed that before the trial Court, the petitioner set forth its claim by examining its partner as DW-1. The controversy regarding the ownership of M.O.7 is indeed a civil controversy. This matter is to be resolved by a Civil Court. I am afraid that it is not open for the criminal Court to decide as to who is entitled to M.O.7 when the claim of PW-1 over the ownership of M.O.7 is disputed by DW-1. I, therefore, considered that it would be just and proper to direct PW-1 and DW-1 to approach the Civil Court to decide as to who amongst them shall be entitled to receive M.O.7. The orders of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside to this extent. 6. Accordingly, this revision is ordered. Order of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court ordering the return of M.O.7 to PW-1 is set aside. PW-1 and DW-1 shall approach the Civil Court for the determination as to who is entitled for the refund of money covered by M.O.7 in between PW-1 and DW-1. In the event the controversy is not resolved within ONE Year from today or no interim order is passed by the Civil Court in the meanwhile, the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court regarding disposal of M.O.7 shall be implemented. 7. This revision is disposed of accordingly. Date: 18-02-2011. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J INL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1123 OF 2004 18th February, 2011 INL