Kallu @ Habib vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13378 MP

       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               AT JABALPUR

                  BEFORE
      HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
            Criminal Appeal No. 10402 of 2019


Between:-
Arif S/o Habib Khan
Aged about 30 years
Occupation-Business,
R/o Samdnagar Mahoba
District Mahoba, U.P.
                                   ................APPELLANT

(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI WITH SHRI VIJAY
KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

AND

State of M.P.
Through P.S. Navgow
District Chhatarpur
                                   ...............RESPONDENT


(STATE BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)

(OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)


                         *****
            Criminal Appeal No. 10474 of 2019
Between:-
Manoj Kumar Soni
S/o Premchand Soni
                               -2-


Aged about 37 years
Occupation-Labour
R/o Lodhi Ki Kuiya
District Chhatarpur (M.P.
                                      ................APPELLANT

(BY SHRI J.L. SONI, ADVOCATE)

AND

State of M.P.
Through P.S. Navgow
District Chhatarpur
                                      ...............RESPONDENT


(STATE BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

(OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

                            *******

            Criminal Appeal No. 10549 of 2019
Between:-
Kallu @ Habib
S/o Shri Peer Bux
Aged about 50 years
Occupation-Driver,
R/o Ward No. 1, Pipri Nowgaon
District Chhatarpur (M.P.)
                                      ................APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAJKAMAL CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

AND

State of M.P.
Through P.S. Nowgaon
District Chhatarpur
                                      ...............RESPONDENT
                              3


(STATE BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)

(OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)


                         *******
            Criminal Appeal No. 10550 of 2019
Between:-
Jaihind
S/o Shri Gulab Singh
Aged about 40 years
Occupation-Farmer,
R/o Village- Digauni, P.S. Rajnagar
District Chhatarpur (M.P.)
                                      ................APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAJKAMAL CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

AND

State of M.P.
Through P.S. Navgow
District Chhatarpur
                                      ...............RESPONDENT

(STATE BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)

(OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

                        ******
            Criminal Appeal No. 10844 of 2019
Between:-
Suleman
S/o Kadir Mansoori
                                     -4-


        Aged about 40 years
        Occupation-Labour
        R/o Bhitarkot
        District Mahoba (U.P.)
                                            ................APPELLANT

        (BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

        State of M.P.
        Through P.S. Navgow
        District Chhatarpur
                                                ...............RESPONDENT
        (STATE BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

        (OBJECTOR BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

________________________________________________________

              Arguments heard on            :      21.07.2022

             Judgment delivered on    :    12.10.2022
     _______________________________________________________
        These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
passed the following judgment:-

                            JUDGMENT

1. All these appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore, they are

being decided by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved

by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2019

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur

whereby appellant Jaihind has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 450, 394, 397 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) of

the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-,

R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, R.I. for 1 year with fine of

Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation. Appellant Aarif has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 394, 397 of IPC

and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years

with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, R.I. for 1

year with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation.

Appellant Suleman has been convicted for the offence punishable under

Sections 450, 394, 397 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine

of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default

stipulation. Appellant Kallu @ Habib has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 120 B of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for

10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. Appellant

Manoj Soni has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section

411 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with

default stipulation.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.4.2010 at about

1:30 pm when complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) was watching TV at

her home and her servant Vinod (PW-8) was also present at home and

was taking his lunch, some persons rang the doorbell, Vinod opened the

door, then 4 persons forcibly entered in the house armed with country

made pistol, tied hands and legs of the complainant and Vinod and

threatened them to kill. They took keys of locker and committed robbery

of silver and gold ornaments and cash etc. The accused persons stayed at

the house of the complainant for about 2-3 hours and thereafter fled

away.

4. The complainant lodged the FIR against them. On the basis of the

which, Crime No. 93/2010 was registered against unknown persons for

the offences punishable under Sections 450, 394, 397 of IPC and Section

25(1-B) of the Arms Act were registered.

5. After due investigation, the Police arrested some of the accused

persons and on their memorandum other accused persons were also

arrested. The articles which were looted and sold out to appellant Manoj

Soni, were recovered from his possession. Charge charge sheet filed

against all the accused persons before the competent Court.

6. Learned trial Court conducted trial and after appreciating oral and

documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the

appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

7. These appeals have been filed by the appellants on the ground that

most of the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the

case of the prosecution. The complainant failed to identify the appellants.

Though the incident occurred in the afternoon but the trial Court ignored

all the weaknesses of the prosecution's case and without proper

corroboration of the evidence of the complainant, learned trial Court

convicted the appellants, therefore, the impugned judgments may be set

aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

evidence available on record. In the present case, material witness is

complainant Ms. Geeta Pateriya (PW-18). She identified appellants

Suleman, Jaihind and Aarif before the trial Court and stated that one of

the accused namely Habib used to work with her as driver. On 14.4.2010,

she was watching TV at her home and her servant Vinod was also present

at home. On hearing the doorbell, Vinod opened the door. Suddenly, 4

persons entered in her house and closed the door. Two of them namely

Suleman and Jaihind sat beside her and took the keys of locker from her

at gunpoint and assaulted her. Appellant Aarif searched her house along

with another co-accused but all the time Suleman put Pistol on her

temples, therefore, she gave keys to them. The accused persons tied the

hands and feet of both complainant and her servant Vinod (PW-8).

Complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) sustained injuries on her face,

teeth, back and waist. They snatched her gold chain weighing about 200-

250 grams. They also looted 2 pairs of ear rings, one diamond ring, 2

gold Kada, 4 gold bangles, one gold neckless. They also looted the

ornaments which belonged to her daughter including gold nose pin, gold

bendi, bajuband, gold bangles, 15-20 gold rings, one pair of silver

anklets, 15-20 live cartridges of 315 bore rifle, 3 mobile sets of Sony

Erickson company and cash of about 56,000/-. Thereafter the appellants

gagged her and fled away from the spot. Thereafter the complainant

untied herself and her servant Vinod and called her neighbour Ramsevak

(PW-9). When Ramsevak reached there, she informed her husband about

the incident from his mobile phone. Her husband informed to the Police

and brothers of complainant namely Kailash and Vishnu and FIR (Ex. P-

25) was lodged by her. Doctor examined her and found injuries on her

body.

9. Vinod (PW-8) duly corroborated the testimony of complainant

Geeta Pateriya (PW-18). He also identified appellants Suleman and

Jaihind and stated that Habib, who was driver of complainant Geeta

Pateriya, was also involved in perpetration of crime.

10. Ramsevak (PW-9) corroborated the testimony of aforesaid witnesses

and stated that the complainant informed her husband about the incident

from his mobile phone. He also stated that just after the incident, the

complainant also informed him that robbery was committed at her house,

therefore, he went to her house and found that the house-hold articles

were scattered, therefore, from his testimony also prosecution case is also

duly corroborated.

11. R.B. Shukla, ASI (PW-17), who registered the FIR (Ex.P-23), stated

that Head Constable Chintaman Mishra produced Dehati Nalisi of the

case, which was written by Town Inspector M.M. Sharma under Section

394 of IPC. In cross examination, he denied that the FIR (Ex.P-23) was

registered by him in collusion with the complainant.

12. From the statements of R.B. Shukla, ASI (PW-17) and complainant

Geeta Pateriya (PW-18), it is established that the FIR (Ex.P-23) was

lodged promptly without any delay in which all the necessary

information was given by complainant regarding commission of the

crime.

13. M.M. Sharma (PW-24), SHO/Investigating Officer, P.S. Kotwali,

District Tikamgarh registered Roznamcha Sanha No. 670 (Ex.P-32) after

receiving the information about the incident, thereafter, he reached on the

spot and interrogated the complainant. Accordingly, he lodged Dehati

Nalisi (Ex.P-25) at Crime No. 0/2010 under Section 394 of IPC. He sent

the complainant for medical examination.

14. Dr. R.P. Pandey (PW-2) examined the complainant on the same day

and found following injuries:-

1. abrasion on left wrist of 1/2 x 1/2 inch

2. contusion over right wrist of 1x1 inch

3. abrasion over upper lip 1/4 x 1/4 inch

4. contusion over left cheek 2 x 2 inches

5. contusion over both ankle joints 1/2 inch

6. contusion over right buttock 3 x 3 inches

15. It was opined that all the injuries were caused to the complainant

by hard and blunt object within 2-4 hours. He submitted his medical

report (Ex.P-8). Although, he has not mentioned nature of injuries but all

those injuries were simple in nature.

16. This Court is not in agreement with the contention of learned

counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid injuries were caused at the

time of taking-off the bangles or such injuries were self inflicted. Thus,

the testimony of complainant is also corroborated by the medical

evidence and all the aforesaid evidence corroborate the case of the

prosecution.

17. M.M. Sharma, Investigating Officer (PW-24) recorded the

statements of material witnesses during investigation under Section 164

of Cr.P.C. During investigation, he arrested accused Mohd. Sunny, Manoj

Soni, Jaihind, Kallu @ Habib Khan and Aarif Khan.

18. Dharmesh Dixit, Dy. S.P. (PW-23) stated that on 1.5.2010, he

received information from secret sources that some persons are hatching

conspiracy to commit robbery in the house of Vishnu Agrawal, thereafter

they proceeded to Kachnar Phase II, Vijay nagar and arrested appellant

Suleman and recovered 315 bore country made pistol along with 12 live

cartridges from his pant in front of witness Sheru @ Nafis Mubeen and

prepared his memorandum (Ex. P-39 and 40) and seizure memo

(Ex.P-42).

19. M.M. Sharma, Investigating Officer (PW-24) interrogated appellant

Suleman during Police remand. He stated about the looted articles that he

sold out the gold jewellery to appellant Manoj Soni who was residing at

Tamaryai Mohalla, Chhatarpur for a consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- out

of which he got his share of Rs. 70,000/- and pair of silver anklet at his

house beneath the clothes, which was recovered by him and

memorandum of Suleman (Ex.P-18) and seizure memo (Ex. P-19) were

prepared. He also arrested Manoj Soni and recovered gold articles vide

seizure memo (Ex.P-14) and arrest memo (Ex. P-12). He prepared his

memorandum (Ex. P-10) and also recovered some gold in melted form

weighing about 120 gram and 460 mg and prepared seizure memo (Ex.

P-11).

20. During investigation, appellant Manoj Soni also gave information

that he kept gold neckless, kade, 4 gold bangles at his house situated at

Tamaryai Mohalla in an Almera. All these properties were recovered by

Police as per memo (Ex.P-13) and (Ex.P-14).

21. Appellant Jaihind was arrested on 12.5.2010 from Chhatarpur and

according to his memorandum, the accused persons sold out some silver

and gold ornaments to appellant Manoj Soni for Rs.2,20,000/- out of

which he got his share of Rs.95,000/- and the said amount was kept by

him at his house in a Box belonging to his wife. He gave Rs.3000/- to

Kallu and kept one country made pistol along with three cartridges at his

room (tapariya). He also stated that he gave Rs.25,000/- out of

Rs.95,000/- to Aarif and his share was Rs.70,000/-. He kept Platinum

motorcycle. All the articles were recovered by Police according to his

memorandum (Ex. P-1 & P-2) and seizure memo (Ex.P-3) was prepared.

A sum of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from his wife's box. He was

arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P-4).

22. Appellant Kallu @ Habib Khan was arrested from Nowgaon as per

seizure memo (Ex.P-7) and as his memorandum (Ex. P-5), Rs. 3000/-

were recovered from his house. Seizure memo (Ex.P-6) was prepared.

M.M. Sharma (PW-24) stated that he interrogated appellant Aarif at

District Jail Chhatarpur with the permission of the Court.. According to

his memorandum (Ex.P-21), he received country made pistol and

cartridges from appellant Jaihind, which was kept by him at his house.

23. Accused Mohd. Sunny was arrested on 7.5.2010 as per arrest memo

(Ex.P-35). As per seizure memo (Ex.P-34), cash Rs.23,000/-, a 315 bore

country made pistol with 3 live cartridges were seized from him.

24. Complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) stated that she went to District

Jail, Chhatarpur, Nowgaon after about 3 months of the incident on

receiving intimation on 27.7.2010. She identified appellant Jaihind and

Aarif out of 6-7 persons, thereafter she signed identification memo. On

2.8.2010, she again went to sub jail, Nowgaon where in similar way, she

identified appellant Suleman out of 6-7 persons.

25. Vinod (PW-8) also stated about identification of appellant Suleman,

Mohd. Sunny and Aarif.

26. Naib Tahsildar, Chhatarpur Rakesh Shukla (PW-3) also corroborated

their testimony and stated that he conducted identification parade as per

(Ex.P-9) at District Jail, Chhatarpur. About 12 other persons were present

along with the appellants, out of which two were identified by the

witnesses. According to him appellant Jaihind was identified by both the

witnesses namely Geeta Pateriya and Vinod.

27. Brijkishore (PW-15) corroborated the testimony of M.M. Sharma

(PW-24) that from the possession of Jaihind, a country made pistol, live

cartridges, Rs.70,000/- and motorcycle were recovered.

28. Govind Singh (PW-16) stated that a piece of gold was recovered

from the house of Manoj. He admitted his signature over documents (Ex.

P-10 to P-12).

29. Rajesh Kumar Shukla (PW-19), Tahsildar conducted identification

parade at Sub-Jail Nowgaon on 15.7.2010. Complainant Geeta Pateriya

(PW-18) and Vinod (PW-8) identified accused Sunny out of 6-7 persons

and identification memo (Ex.P-16) was prepared by him. On 2.8.2010, he

again conducted identification parade at Sub-Jail, Nowgaon. In the same

way, Geeta Pateriya identified Suleman but Vinod did not identify him.

He prepared identification memo (Ex. P-17). In cross examination, he

explained and established that identification parade was conducted by

him after following the due procedure in accordance with law.

30. From the testimony of complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) and

Rakesh Shukla (PW-3), it is established that complainant duly identified

accused persons namely Jaihind, Aarif, Sunny and Suleman although

Vinod did not identify Suleman but merely due to that reason, the

statement of complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) cannot be disbelieved,

which proves that all these appellants were involved in commission of

robbery at the house of complainant. It has not been denied by appellant

Kallu @ Habib that complainant was known to him and he was working

as her driver. Vinod (PW-8) also identified him stating that earlier he

used to work as driver of complainant. While answering question No. 3,

Kallu @ Habib admitted that he was working as driver of complainant

one year ago from the date of incident. Most of the articles were

recovered by the Police from the appellants' possession and some of

ornaments were melted by appellant Manoj and they were recovered in

melted form from his possession. Appellant Manoj stated that Police

used to call him often to identify the jewellery/ornaments at Police

Station and he was fed up with the same, therefore, he refused to

cooperate the Police, hence he has been falsely implicated by the Police.

Appellant Manoj has not cited any incident in this regard, therefore, such

defence is not acceptable.

31. Complainant Geeta Pateriya (PW-18) identified her articles. She has

stated that for identification of her articles, she went to Tahsil Office,

Chhatarpur and identified the article (A-4) a pair of silver anklet, (A-5) 4

gold bangles, article (A-6) 2 gold bangles, (A-7) gold neckless, which

belonged to her daughter, although she did not identify melted gold

because it was not in actual form but as per memorandum of appellant

Manoj, gold ornaments were provided by accused persons thereafter it

was melted by him. Thus, looted property was recovered from the

possession of the appellants and they have failed to explain how all these

properties came in their possession. In absence of their explanation about

possession of the looted property, statement of complainant also seems

trustworthy and reliable that all these articles/ornaments were looted by

the appellants from her house on the date of incident.

32. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the memorandum

of appellants and seizure of looted property are not duly proved in these

cases. There is material contradiction in between the statements of Panch

witnesses and Police witnesses. Even though the learned trial Court

wrongly relied mainly on the testimony of Police witnesses.

33. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1085/2022 [Jang

Bahadur Vs. State of M.P. has confirmed the decision rendered by this

Court on 12.1.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1136/1998 [Jang Bahadur

Vs. State of M.P.], in which, testimony of Police witnesses was relied on

the settled law which was also expressed and observed in the case of

Karamjit Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 5 SCC 291 as follows:-

"the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons, and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor."

34. The Supreme Court referring the aforesaid decision of Karamjit

Singh (supra) in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2020) 10 SCC 120 it was held in paragraph 11.1 as under:-

"11.1. At this stage, reference may be made to Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the said provision, in law if an official act has been proved to have been done, it shall be presumed to be regularly done. Credit has to be given to public officers in the absence of any proof to the contrary of their not acting with honesty or within limits of their authority. Therefore, merely because the complainant conducted the investigation that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the entire prosecution version and to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable. The matter has to be left to be decided on a case to case basis without any universal generalisation.

35. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in

the case of Chandrashekhar Bhardwaj and another vs. State of

Chhattisgarh [2021 SCC Online Chh 1815], wherein it has been

observed as follows:-

"12. It cannot be stated as a rule of law that a police officer can or cannot be a reliable in a criminal case which will always depend upon facts of a given case. If testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. Only when his interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be attached to is statement. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without there being good grounds therefor.

13. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police Officer is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the Court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the Court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity

of evidence."

36. In the case of Chidi Berr Nwayoga Vs. State reported in 2022

SCC OnLine Del 2558 it has been observed by the High Court of Delhi

that lack of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of prosecution

and the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the Police

witnesses if their evidence is reliable as held by the Supreme Court in the

decision reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 869 Raveen Kumar Vs. State

of Himachal Pradesh. Testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is

reliable and despite extensive cross-examination nothing adverse has

been elicited from them. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as

(2020) 10 SCC 120 Mukesh Singh Vs. State and (2020) 10 SCC 740

Rajesh Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. Section 50 of the NDPS

Act is not applicable to the facts of the case since the reocvery was made

from the bag carried by the appellant and not from his personal search.

Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as (2018) 18 SCC 540

Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 10 SCC 473 State of Punjab

Vs. Baljinder Singh, (2020) 5 SCC 260 Than Kunwar Vs. State of

Haryana and Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2021 decided on 11.12.2021

Kallu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan. There is no tamnpering with the

contraband. As per the FSL report, the seals were found intact. Only the

letters in the seals have been mentioned in a different seriatim, which

fact has been ascertained by the learned Trial Court on seeking the

original seals when the contraband and samples were produced before

the Court. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as (2019) 10

SCC 649 State of Rajasthan Vs. Sahi Ram and (2009) 14 SCC 387 State

of Rajasthan Vs. Daul. Section 57 of the NDPS Act was duly complied

with. Even otherwise non-compliance of Section 57 NDPS Act would not

vitiate the case of the prosecution as held by the Constitution Bench in

the decision reported as (1994) 3 SCC 299 State of Punjab Vs. Balbir

Singh. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as (2001) 6 SCC 692

Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala and (2015) 6 SCC 222 Mohan Lal

Vs. State of Rajasthan. There being no infirmity in the impugned

judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appeal be dismissed.

37. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Sanjeet

Kumar Singh alias Munna Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1117.

38. In the present case, the FIR was promptly lodged by the

complainant. Her testimony was duly corroborated by the medical

evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. Accused persons namely

Arif, Kallu @ Habib, Jaihind, Suleman and looted articles were duly

identified by the complainant. The evidences of Police witnesses are also

found reliable, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.

Considering the evidence available on record and in the light of the

aforesaid decisions, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly

appreciated the testimony of the witnesses and has not committed any

error in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offence. I do not find

any ground to make interference in the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by the trial Court.

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, these appeals fail and are

hereby dismissed maintaining the finding of conviction and sentence as

recorded by the trial Court. Appellants Kallu @ Habib and Manoj Soni

are on bail, their bail bonds stands cancelled. They shall surrender before

the trial Court concerned within a period of one month otherwise the trial

Court concerned shall take appropriate steps for taking them into the

custody for serving the remaining part of their jail sentence.

40. I.A. No.14689/2022 has been filed by the complainant for return of

money looted in present crime. As per the report lodged by the

complainant, the appellants looted Rs.56,000/- cash and ornaments from

her house. Some of them were sold to appellant Manoj Soni and other

ornaments were recovered from other appellants. From the record, it

appears that cash of about Rs.70,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.300/- (total

Rs.85,300/-) were also recovered from the appellants. The complainant

has rightly claimed the aforesaid amount. In my considered opinion, the

trial Court has wrongly directed to forfeit the aforesaid amount, thus, this

application is allowed. Trial Court is directed to return the cash/money

looted in present crime to the complainant in accordance with law.

41. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court concerned for

information and necessary action.

(Smt. Anjuli Palo) Judge

PB

PRADYUMNA BARVE 2022.10.13 17:03:55 +05'30'