03 January 2018
Respected sir, Complainant has lodged FIR for theft of some gold ornament. accordingly thief were arrested and they pointed out the man to whom they sold and gold were recovered in melted condition from the place of Third party who is neither accused under S.379 or 411. Now this third party has made an application for return of property contending that recovered gold was of its ownership and has produced documentary evidence. simulteneusly the original complainant has also made counter application for return of property and court has ordered that the gold be returned to original complainant. now what will be the position of third party ? what he can do ? Please guide .
04 January 2018
1. "IF" "gold were recovered in MELTED CONDITION, "THEN" there is no evidence to prove that the recovered melted gold was at anytime the stolen "some gold ornament". The case becomes infructuous, since the stolen property (Gold) cannot be identified or proved.
2. NEXT, if the "Third Party" has produced proper & cogent documentary evidence of the ownership of the recovered melted Gold, THEN there lies no criminal offence against the Third Party, irrespective of the infructuous statement of the Thief, which has no literal meaning in a Court of Law.
3. The Court CANNOT order any "UN-identified stolen item" to be returned to the Complainant, more so when the "Third Party" has produced proper & cogent documentary evidence of the ownership of the recovered melted Gold.
04 January 2018
If the third party is not disputing the fact that he purchased the gold from the person who has allegedly stolen item from the original complainant, his remedy, if any, lies against the accused. However, this remedy is circumscribed by many an aspect depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case..