 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1092 OF 2008. 1. Kamarunnissa W/o.Najibullakhan, aged about 65 years, Occu.: Household, 2. Hanifabi w/o.Khallullakhan, aged about 55 years, Occu. : Household. 3. Nasibabi W/o. Mujibullakhan, aged about 45 years, Occu.: Household. All R/o. Kazipura Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. .... APPELLANTS . // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, 2. Sayyad Aminoor Rahaman Alias Panim S/o. Sayyad Taslim, aged about 48 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Kazipura, Barsitakli, Distt. : Akola. .... RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Habibuddin Ahmed, Advocate for Applicants. Shri S.P.Palshikar, Advocate for Non-applicants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R.C.CHAVAN, J. Date of Reserving Judgment : 17.01.2009. Date of Pronouncing Judgment: 20.01.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :  1. The applicants/ complainants, on whose report a criminal case was filed against respondent No.2 and others, take exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.30/2005, whereby the applicants had challenged order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing return of property to Non- applicant No.2 upon acquittal of the accused in the said case. 2. Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the applicant's application for condonation of delay in appeal against order of return of the property. This order was challenged by them by filing Criminal Application No.47/1994. This revision application was allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was directed to hear the matter afresh and dispose it of according to law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by impugned order dated 15th January, 2008, however, seems to have erroneously recorded that Criminal Revision Application No.46 of 1994 was dismissed, which is not correct. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that the acquittal of respondent No. 2 and others was challenged by Criminal Appeal No.466/1993 before this Court and this Court had dismissed the said appeal. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, not only  the order of acquittal but the order of return of property was also confirmed by the High Court and, therefore, she dismissed the appeal against order directing return of the property to Non-applicant No.2/ original accused No.3 in the case. 4. I have heard both, the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondent. 5. In this case, the applicant is original complainant, on whose complaint an offence was registered and Hanifabi and Nasibabi were initially prosecuted. In that crime on 31.07.1981, Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman had appeared at Police Station Barshitakli and produced the ornaments stating that they had been obtained by Hanifabi by cheating and had kept the ornaments with him. When said Sayyed Aminoor Rahman made this statement in course of seizure panchnama, he was not an accused in the case. Subsequently, he came to be joined as an accused in the case and the chargesheet was filed. His application for discharge was allowed. A revision preferred against that order, as far as Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman was concerned, was rejected. Subsequently, Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman was joined as an accused and was tried with others, and acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who ordered return of  property to person from whom it was seized. This is how Sayyed Aminoor Rahman was to get the property. This order was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed. The applicants came to this Court by filing a revision bearing No.46 of 1994, which was allowed and the learned Sessions Judge was directed to hear the appeal again and dispose it of according to law. The learned Sessions Judge again confirmed the same order. This is how the applicants are before this Court. 6. Since Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman had himself stated that he had received the property from the co-accused Hanifabi, who had obtained it by cheating and since this statement was made before Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman was made an accused, the applicants contend that Sayyed Aminoor Rahaman was not entitled to the property and they are entitled to the same. 7. In view of this, it would be necessary for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the appeal on merits and consider entitlement of the applicant to claim return of the property. It has to be clarified that the acquittal of the accused and order directing return of property are not necessarily interlinked and confirmation of acquittal by  this Court does not necessarily mean that even order in respect of the return of the property gets confirmed. 8. In view of this, the impugned judgment and order dated 15th January, 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to hear and decide the Criminal Appeal No.30/2005 before her on merits. 9. The parties shall appear before that Court on 9th February, 2009. 10. The application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RR..