Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli v. State of Karnataka, (SC) BS119971

Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli v. State of Karnataka, (SC) BS119971 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Agrawal and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Criminal Appeals Nos. 419-20 of 2005 (Arising out of SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 2128-29 of 2004). D/d. 14.3.2005.

Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli - Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka and another - Respondents

NOTE

Disposal of case property - 451/452 Criminal Procedure Code- In case of dispute between the Pw. and Complainant the civil Court is competent to decide the ownership.

Indian Penal Code, Sections 380 and 457 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 7 - Civil Procedure Code, Section 9 - Civil Procedure Code, Order 20 Rule 10 - Theft case - Stolen property recovered and accused convicted - Two persons claiming title to property - It is for Civil Court to decide title.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and two years respectively. So far as the custody of seized gold articles MOs 1 to 5 is concerned, it was directed by the trial court that it would be open to the parties to get their title established, meaning thereby, by moving the competent civil court by filing an appropriate suit. Against the order of conviction, no appeal was preferred; whereas against the order of the trial court regarding custody of MOs 1 to 5, the complainant as well as PW3 filed separate appeals. The appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed by the Sessions Court; whereas the same filed by PW3 was allowed and MOs 1 to 5 were directed to be released in favour of PW3. The said order has been confirmed by the High Court. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, we are of the view that the trial court was quite justified in directing the parties to get their title established by moving the competent civil court. The appellate court was not justified in reversing the same and the High Court was not justified in confirming the appellate court's order.

4. The appeal are, accordingly, allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the appellate Court are set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is restored.

Appeal allowed.