Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109251 Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4683 of 2024 Revisionist :- Gopal Ji Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Balwant Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1099 of 2023 (Arun Arora vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2008, under Sections 328, 380, 504, 506, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 393 of 2008, 328, 380, 504, 506, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar was lodged by the informant alleging that certain ornaments from his house were stolen. Later on, that stolen articles were recovered from the revisionist-accused. In between when the case was sent to the Session court for trial, the case was registered as Session Trial No. 903 of 2010 (State vs. Gopal Srivastava). During the pendency of the trial a release application was filed by informant Arun Arora and who sought the release of the seized gold chain in his favour. The learned trial court allowed the release application of the informant-respondent subject to the condition that property be released in his favour subject to the condition he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakhs. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the said release application was decided without affording any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist-accused. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the seized article was not owned by the informant rather the said article was his own property. It was further submitted that the above Session trial resulted in his acquittal. It was also observed by learned trial court that the alleged stolen property was not identified by the informnat during the investigation. Revisionist has submitted that the alleged gold chain was purchased by him and he has also filed receipt of the gold chain. It was submitted that impugned order suffers from illegality as it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and order be passed that the gold chain released in favour of respondent-informant be released in his favour. 5. Sri Balwant Pratap Singh, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from illegality as the order is conditional and if the revisionist is aggrieved by the said order, he is at liberty to file a fresh application to make his claim on the seized property. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is very much evident that the alleged gold chain which was said to be stolen, was released in favour of the informant Arun Arora during the pendency of Session Trial No. 903 of 2010 but before passing the release order, certain conditions were also laid down by the learned trial court. It was directed by the learned trial court that the gold chain will be released in favour of the informant subject to the condition that he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakhs and an undertaking that the said property should not be sold to anybody and will not tamper the released property. It was also observed by the learned trial court that if any claim regarding the said property is made by any other person, then the respondent-informant will immediately produce the property before the concerned court on his own expenses. 8. The impugned order is a self contained order. The observation made by the learned trial court that if any claim by any other person is set up in respect of the said gold chain, then the informant will be bound to produce it before the court. The said order itself reflects that while passing an order of release, the learned trial court has no where recorded its finding that the informant is the owner of the alleged stolen property and the court is releasing it after deciding his ownership. Whenever, a court decides an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C., the court does not takes into account the ownership of the property rather it draws its conclusion on the basis of lawful possession. The impugned order has not shut the opportunity of the revisionist to make his claim before the concerned court in light of the changed circumstances. Therefore, it will be expedient that the revisionist may approach before the proper court by filing an application for the release of the alleged chain. 9. The court concerned without being influenced by the earlier order dated 3.8.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1099 of 2023 (Arun Arora vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2008, under Sections 328, 380, 504, 506, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar may pass an order in accordance with law if any such application is made before it after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 10. With this observation, the revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Ujjawal Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad