IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 166 of 2002. Date of decision: 16.12.2008. Kanwar Singh & another ….. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 15.6.2002. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were tried by the learned trial Court (J.M.I.C., Jubbal) under Sections 379, 447 and 188 I.P.C. Vide judgment dated 13.9.2000, the learned trial Court acquitted both the petitioners. In regard to the case property, it was ordered that the case property i.e. Rs.2,500/- shall stand confiscated in favour of the State. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 15.6.2002 accepted the appeal filed by the petitioners partly and held that the trial Magistrate shall return the case 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 property to the concerned party only after the decision made by the Civil Court in this regard. Being aggrieved by this part of the judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The facts of the case are very clear that a complaint was lodged against the petitioners that they have committed theft of the apple crop standing in the land. They were tried and were acquitted by the learned trial Court. The dispute is only in regard to the return of the case property, which has already been sold during the trial of the case and the amount has been deposited in the Government Treasury. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that since the complainant has never claimed that the crop was cut from his land and had not challenged the findings either of the trial Court or that of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners are entitled to the return of the amount in their favour. To substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a judgment of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioners, wherein it was held that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to return of the amount. I am not convinced of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to return of the amount in question particularly because the report was lodged in regard to the theft of the apple crop standing on the land. Even though the petitioners may have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, it 3 has to be considered as to whether they are entitled to the return of the amount realized from the sale of the apple crop or not. A reference to the statement of the petitioners recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court, shows that they have never admitted that the apple crop was cut by them or that the land in question was in their possession, since they have denied all the questions put to them in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Once the petitioners never claimed that they had cut the apple crop, which was recovered from them or that they were in possession of the crop standing in the land in question, they cannot be held entitled to the amount realized from the sale of the apple crop, for which a charge was framed against them in regard to the theft of the said apple crop. In case, the petitioners had claimed any right or that it was recovered from them, they would have been entitled to the amount in question. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly passed the order that it will be subject to the decision of the Civil Court and I find no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Courts below alongwith the record. V.K. Ahuja ) December 16, 2008 Judge (BSS)