JUDGMENT/ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 343/1997 has been preferred against the order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat ('lower appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 5/95, whereby the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat ('trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/83; vide the said order dated 13.02.1995 the recovered articles in question were ordered to be returned to respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Lal. 2. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 342/1997 has been preferred against the order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Appeal No. 6/95, whereby the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/83; vide the said order dated 13.02.1995 the recovered articles in question were ordered to be returned to respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Lal. 3. Ms. Yogita Mohnani, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the private respondent(s) submitted two applications (in both the revision petitions) under Section 394 Cr.P.C. (Inward No. 1/22) seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2-Bhanwar Lal on record. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Accordingly, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2-Bhanwarlal, as mentioned in the applications, are taken on record, being arrayed as party respondents in these petitions; amended cause titles already filed are also taken on record. Thus, such substitution shall also form part of the present judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 10.07.1980, a complaint was filed by the deceased-Bhanwarlal (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') to the effect that gold ornaments weighing 19½ tola and silver ornaments weighing 97 tola and a cash in a sum of Rs. 265/- were stolen from his house, on the previous night; report whereof was also lodged by the complainant, on the same day i.e. 10.07.1980, before the Police Station, Sojat, whereupon the same was registered as Criminal Case No. 126/80 for the offences under Section 457 & 380 IPC. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after two years of the alleged incident, the accused-Devaram was arrested, during the course of investigation. 5.2. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after two years of the alleged incident, the accused-Devaram was arrested, during the course of investigation. 5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that after being arrested, while the investigation was going on, the said accused-Devaram informed the concerned investigating officer that some of the stolen articles were being sold by him to goldsmith, namely, Dayaram s/o Gopilal s/o Sojat Road; some articles were sold by the accused to goldsmith, namely, Samir Sarraf r/o Sojat City; while some of the articles sold by him to goldsmith, namely, Ugam Raj s/o Bhanwar Surana. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that after investigation and the necessary recovery [of gold and silver in solid form (dhaliya)] having been effected from the concerned persons (buyers of the stolen articles in question), a charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and the trial according commenced. 5.4. Learned counsel also submitted that after trial, vide the order dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned trial court, the aforementioned accused-Deva Ram was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 IPC; for conviction under both the offences, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. 5.5. Learned counsel however, submitted that vide the same impugned order dated 13.02.1995, learned trial court directed that the recovered articles shall be returned to the complainant; against such determination, the present petitioners preferred appeals before the lower appellate court, but the same were dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.06.1997, while upholding the determination of the learned trial court; hence, against both the impugned orders, the present petitions, as mentioned above, have been preferred. 5.6. Learned counsel further submitted that before making a determination in regard to return of the stolen articles in question to the complainant vide the impugned order dated 13.02.1995, the learned trial court has not afforded any opportunity, nor issued any notice to the petitioners so as to enable them to put forth their stand, in regard to such determination, before it. 5.7. 5.7. Learned counsel also submitted that the stolen articles in question, alleged to have been belonging to the complainant, were recovered (in solid form-Dhaliya) upon the indication/information of accused-Deva Ram, that too, after two years of the alleged theft; this is more so when, the recovered articles were not the same, as were allegedly stolen from the house of the complainant. 5.7.1 Learned counsel however, submitted that the said recovery of Dhaliya (articles) were made, under the immense pressure and threat exerted by the concerned investigating authority, whereupon the ornaments were converted into Dhaliya by the petitioners and handed over to the concerned investigating authority; at the time of the said recovery, the signatures of the petitioners on the concerned fard were also taken by the police, by exerting pressure upon them; this is more so when, the complainant could not prove the factum of the recovered articles being the same as were allegedly stolen from the house of the complainant, by placing the cogent evidence on record before the learned trial court. 5.8. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order of return of the articles (in sold form) to the complainant without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it, more particularly, the one pertaining to the fact that the articles recovered from the petitioners, were not the ones, which were allegedly stolen by accused-Deva Ram from the house of the complainant. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned lower appellate court also erred in affirming the determination made by the learned trial court. Thus, as per learned counsel, both the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law, and deserve to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, and have supported the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, and have supported the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. 7. As regards, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that no notice was issued to them by the learned trial court, before passing the impugned order in regard to return of the articles to the complainant, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that for such determination, no notice was required to be issued, as the petitioners were very much aware of such proceedings before the learned trial court, and thus, they were very much required to remain present before the learned trial court on each and every date of hearing of the case; this is more so when petitioner-Samir Mal had moved an application before the learned trial court on 28.09.1991 for release of the articles in question in his favour. 7.1.1 Learned counsel further submitted that in the litigation pending before the learned trial court, the names of the present petitioners were very much there in the list of witnesses prepared by the prosecution; however, their version was not found to be worth-believing by the learned trial court, and rightly so; thus, as per learned counsel, the argument of the petitioners regarding non-affording of any adequate opportunity to put forth their stand does not merit acceptance. 7.2. Learned counsel also submitted that it was an established fact before the learned trial court that the articles (in solid form) as recovered by the concerned investigating authority from the possession of the present petitioners, were the same, as were allegedly stolen from the house of the complainant, that too, on the strength of the indication, information and identification made by the accused-Deva Ram (culprit of the theft in question), on different dates. 7.2.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of the present petitioners speaks for itself and rather the same is self explanatory, to the effect that immediately after purchasing the stolen articles in question, the same were converted into solid form (dhaliya), whereas the petitioners could not point out any reason, as to what prompted them to make such conversion. 7.3. 7.3. As regards the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the recovery in question was effected by the concerned investigating officer and the signatures of the petitioners, as taken, upon the concerned recovery fard, both were done under immense pressure and threat by the concerned investigating officer, learned counsel submitted that the same could not be proved before the learned trial court by the petitioners; and even if that was so, the petitioners also could not point out before the learned trial court, whether they had complained of such an alleged conduct on the part of the police authority to their superior authorities, and if not, then the reason thereof; but as regards the said issue, nothing was forthcoming before the learned trial court, on the part of the present petitioners. Thus, such argument of the petitioners also is not worthy of consideration. 7.4. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court has taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it, before passing the impugned order of return of the recovered articles to the complainant; and affirmation thereof in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, as made by the learned lower appellate court, also cannot be faulted with, and thus, both the impugned orders does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that there are varying versions put forth by certain prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court, in regard to the recovery in question, which is also detrimental to the case of the present petitioners in regard to their being the bona fide purchasers of the recovered articles in question and ownership thereof; this is more so when the documents produced before the learned trial court clearly shows the ownership of the complainant in regard to the recovered articles in question. 9. Another pertinent aspect of the present case, as noticed by this Court also, is the failure of the petitioners in reporting the alleged illegal act on the part of the concerned investigating officer while effecting recovery of the articles in question from the possession of the petitioners, which speaks much about their own conduct. 9. Another pertinent aspect of the present case, as noticed by this Court also, is the failure of the petitioners in reporting the alleged illegal act on the part of the concerned investigating officer while effecting recovery of the articles in question from the possession of the petitioners, which speaks much about their own conduct. Thus, when the petitioners were themselves sitting tight over their own alleged rights, then they cannot seek any relief, at a belated stage, when there are two consecutive orders passed against them by the learned courts below. 10. This Court also observes that the record of the case clearly reveals that the recovered articles, which were converted into solid form (dhaliya) by the petitioners, upon the same being sold by the accused-Deva Ram to them, seven days after the alleged theft, were in fact belonged to the complainant; thus, being the owner thereof, the same have been rightly been ordered to be returned to the complainant, by the learned trial court, and thus, the affirmation of such a determination cannot also be faulted with. 11. In view the above, this Court finds that both the learned courts below, in passing the two consecutive orders impugned herein in favour of the complainant, have not committed any error, rather both the impugned orders, the opinion of this Court, are well reasoned speaking orders, which are sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and therefore, the same do not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.