JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The trial Court, in the above noted case, rejected the application of the complainant for return of money which had been looted by robbers in a highway robbery, which brings the applicant under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code before this Court. 2. Around Rs. 26,79,700/- is said to have been taken away during the course of highway robbery out of which Rs. 3,70,000/- were recovered from robbery out of which Rs. 3,70,000/- were recovered from accused Lalloo Singh. The said accused had claimed the amount in the bail plea as his own. The remaining amount which was Rs. 15,61,700/- and which was recovered from other accused has not been claimed by them. 3. The trial Court rejected the application of the complainant Mohd. Shoaib for the return of the money pendente lite only because the money was case property and the case was still pending investigation. 4. That is not sufficient ground for refusing to return stolen property as has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalai Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) A.C.C., 223. The view propounded by the Supreme Court in that case leans towards return of property pendente lite unless there is something special and particular which may not justify return of property. 5. The amount Rs. 15,61,700/- recovered from other accused should, therefore, be returned to the complainant Mohd. Shoaib. 6. The amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- claimed by the accused Lalloo Singh as his own need not be returned pendente lite because of dispute of ownership of the money. This dispute should be decided at the trial expeditiously and within less than six months from the date the charge-sheet is filed, so that the money may not be suffer losses. In case the matter is not decided within six months, the party concerned can bring the matter to the notice of this Court. 7. ln the result, the petition is disposed of with a direction that Rs. 15,61,700 shall forthwith be returned and handed over to applicant Mohd. Shoaib by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court after obtaining a receipt and after taking photograph of said currency notes at the expense of the State, which will be attested or countersigned by the Central Nazir and will be kept intact during the trial. 8. 15,61,700 shall forthwith be returned and handed over to applicant Mohd. Shoaib by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court after obtaining a receipt and after taking photograph of said currency notes at the expense of the State, which will be attested or countersigned by the Central Nazir and will be kept intact during the trial. 8. A copy of this order be sent by the office post-haste through learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat to concerned Court for compliance. Order Accordingly. ———