JUDGMENT 1. By the present appeal, the appellant original complainant in Sessions Case No.578 of 1991 of the Court of Sessions at Mumbai has assailed the part of order dated 28th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial giving custody of Article 30 "U" shape gold necklace and small piece of 300 mg gold to respondent no.2 on certain conditions and prayed for setting aside the same and returning said article to the appellant. 2. The said sessions case had arisen out of the investigation of Crime No.428 of 1990 registered with L.T. Marg police station upon first information report lodged by the appellant regarding robbery of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.10,000/- committed at the point of gun by three persons armed with the weapons in his jewellery shop on 27th October, 1990. As a result of said investigation the L.T. Marg police station had charge-sheeted in all five accused. The four accused out of them having absconded said trial could be proceeded only against sole accused available for trial. 3. The appellant preferred Misc. Application No. 688 of 1995 for returning all articles seized during the investigation and produced at the said trial. The respondent no.2, examined as witness P.W.13 at the trial also preferred Misc. Application No.750 of 1995 for returning of Art.30 to him. In short, it is the case of the appellant that matters transpired during investigation as well as evidence surfaced at the trial reveals that Art.30 was made up from the parts of ornaments robbed from his shop. While it is the case of respondent no.2 that he had purchased said Art.30 for value from one Santosh Shetty i.e. one of the accused out of four absconding accused and as such he is bonafide purchaser for value of the said Article. It is his contention that evidence surfaced at the trial does not establish that Art.30 is made up of part of the ornaments stolen from the shop of the appellant. 4. Mr. V.J. Bhanusali, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside as the trial Court completely ignored that the appellant claiming ownership of Art.30 had prayed for passing the order regarding disposal of said article. 4. Mr. V.J. Bhanusali, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside as the trial Court completely ignored that the appellant claiming ownership of Art.30 had prayed for passing the order regarding disposal of said article. He urged that the trial Court preferred to give/continue custody of same with respondent no.2 as the same was given in his custody during the course of investigation. He urged that the trial Court acted in such a manner only on the count of inability of the trial Court to pass the final order of disposal of property due to trial being not over as four accused were absconding. Learned counsel prayed for setting aside order passed by the trial Court and after ascertaining merits of the claim of the appellant, even during pendency of trial of said absconding accused, returning the Art.30 to him on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper for avoiding causing of prejudice to the prosecution. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that since the right of the appellant to have said Article and/or his claim regarding same being not at all considered by the trial Court, the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the same in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel further urged that order passed by trial Court has deprived him of the property all these years. He further urged that the incident of robbery had occurred in the year 1990. The said sessions case was decided in the year 1995. He urged that even after passage of 16 years or thereabout after decision of the said case yet four accused could not be apprehended by the police and it is likely that case of the said accused would remain on dormant file for number of years or may be forever. The said sessions case was decided in the year 1995. He urged that even after passage of 16 years or thereabout after decision of the said case yet four accused could not be apprehended by the police and it is likely that case of the said accused would remain on dormant file for number of years or may be forever. He further urged that in the event of this court being not inclined to accept the prayers made on behalf of the appellant on the count of order passed by the trial Court being interim order or for any other reason, then at least liberty be given to him to apply afresh to the trial Court for passing the final order or the further order regarding disposal of the said property during the pendency of the trial of said four absconding accused; after duly considering claim staked by him for the said property. He urged that some time bound directions be given to the trial Court as not giving the same would deprive him the property for indefinite period without their existing any sound reason. He urged that the appellant being victim of crime committed by the criminals cannot be reason for depriving him his property. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the submission of appellant that even though both the parties had made an application for passing final order regarding Art.30, the trial Court did not decide the said claim and merely passed interim order on the count of trial of absconding accused being pending. He, however urged that as the interim order regarding custody of the said property was passed by the trial Court, appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, as it was necessary for appellant to file an application for revision for challenging the said order. 7. He, however, submitted that in event of this court being inclined to remand the matter back to the extent of deciding the claim of appellant regarding Art.30 or inclined to grant liberty to the appellant as sought by him, then for serving ends of justice similar liberty be also given to respondent no.2. He further also urged for giving direction to decide such applications in time bound manner. 8. He further also urged for giving direction to decide such applications in time bound manner. 8. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties but having due record to the fact that the said order was passed on 20th September, 1995 and by then the trial of four absconding accused was pending and taking into consideration the recitals of the last paragraph of order passed by the trial Court to the effect:– "Both the applicants P.W.1 and P.W.13 are claiming custody of Art.30 and the issue, who is entitled for the custody and possession of Art.30 cannot be decided at this stage when the trial is pending against the remaining 4 accused. So also both the applicant P.W.1 an P.W.13 are claiming the possession and custody of Art.30 which issue only can be decided at the time of final disposal after the conclusion of the trial against the remaining 4 accused." Makes it difficult to find any fault with the trial Court having passed interim order. The same is obvious as admittedly, it is claim of respondent no.2 that he had purchased Art.30 for value from absconding accused Santosh Shetty. Having due regard to the said circumstance, the trial Court then could not have passed order regarding final disposal of the property before completion of the trial of the said accused. However, the submissions of rival parties that the other aspects regarding the claim staked about Art.30 were not considered and determined on merits by the trial Court cannot be said to be without substance. There also appears some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the order of returning Art.30 to respondent no.2 being passed primarily only on the basis of said property being earlier returned to respondent no.2 during the course of investigation. In view of the same, the trial Court having not at all considered the rival claims on merits regarding the said article and taking into account number of years by now passed, it appears necessary to grant liberty to both the parties to make the claim afresh to the trial Court for passing further appropriate order regarding disposal of the said property. 9. In the premises aforesaid the appeal devoid of merit deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. 9. In the premises aforesaid the appeal devoid of merit deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances liberty is granted to the appellant and respondent no.2 to apply afresh to the trial Court for passing further appropriate orders regarding disposal of Art.30 in Sessions Case No.578 of 1995 after taking into consideration the aspect whether the said property would be required for the trial of the said four absconding accused or if said purpose can be served by any other suitable method. In the event of such applications being made, the trial Court shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of such application. Additionally the trial Court shall give due opportunity to rival parties to adduce evidence, if any desired in support of their claim, in addition to evidence which is already recorded during the trial. The interim order passed in this appeal on 18th December, 1995 to remain in force till disposal such application. Record and proceedings of Sessions Case No.578 of 1995 be returned to the Sessions Court. Appeal dismissed.