JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by complainant-Vishnu Dutt, being aggrieved against the order dated August 29, 1992 whereby the application dated 23.7.92 filed by him for delivery of the peroperty was rejected by the concerned Magistrate. 2. In order to appreciate the contention raised in this petition, necessary facts may be stated as under:- The petitioner filed a report at Police Station Ganj-Ajmer on August 22, 1980 whereupon Crime No. 96/80 was registered under Section 380 Indian Penal Code. The matter related to theft of gold and silver ornaments. After registration of the case, six accused persons namely; Kakku @ Sushil Dutt, Chandu @ Chandra Prakash, Nihal Chand, Kamalchand, Sunil Kumar and Filiya alias Ram Niwas were arrested and on their information and at their instance stolen properties were recovered. All the accused-persons were put to trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.5, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 1202/89 (Old No. 243/82). During the pendency of trial accused Kamal Chand absconded as such trial of the remaining accused persons proceeded. After completion of trial all the accused, except Kamal Chand, were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges under Sections 380 and 411, Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 1.4.92. For the recovered properties the learned Magistrate observed that proper order shall be passed after the trial of co-accused Kamal Chand, who had absconded, though, application was moved on behalf of the accused persons that the recovered articles may be delivered to the complainant and they were not claiming the same. The petitioner also moved an application before the concerned Magistrate on 23.7.92 for the delivery of articles detailing out the articles, but the same was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.8.92 with the observation that the said Court was not competent to make any alternation in the final judgment passed by it. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that all the articles have been correctly identified by the complainant and his wife which belonged to them and that there is no other claimant except them. Learned counsel also contended that the accused-persons have already given in writing that they were not claiming the recovered articles and the same be delivered to the complainant. Learned counsel also contended that the accused-persons have already given in writing that they were not claiming the recovered articles and the same be delivered to the complainant. The learned counsel also contended that more than 15 years have already passed and so far the judgment of the learned Magistrate is concerned, it has become final, as neither the accused nor the State have challenged the said judgment and the petitioner is the only claimant of the articles and no useful purpose shall be served keeping the articles in the custody of the Court for an indefinite period. Counsel also pointed out that the co-accused Kama] Chand has not been apprehended for the last more than 8 years and the only article which was recovered at his information was a golden ring weighing 3.3 grams and at the most this article can be claimed by him, if he is put to trial. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Magistrate and also contended that in case the articles are delivered to the petitioner then suitable conditions be imposed and the gold ring which was recovered for the possession and on the information of accused Kamal Chand be not delivered to the petitioner. 4. Arter hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused who were put to trial are not claiming the recovered articles, I am of the opinion that the recovered articles, except the gold ring weighing 3.3 grams recovered on the information of accused Kamal Chand, be delivered to the petitioner on the following conditions : (i) that the petitioner shall execute a Supurdginama (personal bond) in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with a stipulation to restore such property to the concerned Court, if any such order is made by the said Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) before delivering the property, an inventry of the articles with their details and valuation shall be prepared by the concerned Court, and the said inventry shall be kept on the file of the case. Similarly, two coloured photographs of cabinet size of each of the articles shall also be obtained and the same be kept on the file. Similarly, two coloured photographs of cabinet size of each of the articles shall also be obtained and the same be kept on the file. The expenses of the photos shall be borne by the petitioner. 5. The petition stands disposed of as indicated above. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.Petition disposed of. *******