JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition,the petitioner Shyamlal seeks to quash the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, whereby he has refused to return stolen cash recovered at the instance of the non- petitioner no. 2, to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged a report at P.S. Abu road, on 15.1980 stating therein that on 25.4.80 he went on official duty from Ajmer to Udaipur. When he returned on 26.4.80 he found that his lock was broken and he could not visualise the articles of his wife. On 30.4.80 his wife and children returned, thereupon it was found that some gold articles and currency notes of Rs. 4000/- in cash were missing. On this report the police started investigation and after investigation non-petitioner no. 2 was arrested and challan under section 457 and 380 I.P.C. was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in sup- port of its case examined 14 witnesses and in defence no-one was produced. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the charge. The learned Magistrate after trial acquitted the accused of the offence. During the course of investigation gold articles were recovered at the instance of the accused and seized.The articles were correctly identified by the wife of the petitioner and were given to her on superdginama. The cash amount recovered at the instance of the accused was not given to the petitioner on the ground that number of currency notes were_ not furnished by the petitioner and some of the currency notes were recovered from the other persons at the instance of the accused. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing this part of the order. 3. Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly Rs. 1350/- were recovered from Shanker Lal Purohit vide Ex. P-4 on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-14, Rs. 580/- were recovered vide Ex. P-6 on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-13, Rs. 280/- were recovered on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-15 and Rs. 142/- were recovered vide Ex. P-10. 1350/- were recovered from Shanker Lal Purohit vide Ex. P-4 on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-14, Rs. 580/- were recovered vide Ex. P-6 on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-13, Rs. 280/- were recovered on the information furnished by the accused vide Ex. P-15 and Rs. 142/- were recovered vide Ex. P-10. The learned Magistrate has erred in not giving this cash amount to the complainant only on account of the fact that the numbers of the currency notes were not given, whereas they were recovered only at the instance of the non-petitioner no. 2. 4. I have heard Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.C. against judgment of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, dated 13-2.85 Sharma and K.L. Thakur learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. As per evidence on record it is clear that the recoveries of amount of Rs. 1350/-, Rs. 580/- and Rs. 280/- were effected at the instance of the accused by the police and out of this Rs. 1350/- and Rs. 580/- were recovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that out of the cash stolen he can get recovered Rs. 1350/- from Shankerlal and - Rs. 580/- from his house. It is pertinent to note that there is no other claimant except the petitioner and merely by not mentioning the number of currency notes in the complaint, which is not possible and practicable, the petitioner can't be deprived of the amounts so recovered that too when the accused non-petitioner has himself admitted it. The Public Prosecutor has no objection, if the amount of Rs. 1350/- be returned to the petitioner instead of Shankerlal and Rs. 580/- may also be returned to the petitioner instead of the accused. In this view of the matter, this part of the order deserves to be set aside and in my opinion, Shyamlal is entitled to get the aforesaid amounts. 5. In the result, this petition is partly allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside to the extent it deprives the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 1350/- and Rs. 580/- and it is directed that these amounts be returned to the petitioner.Petition partly allowed. *******