JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi Advocate, for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and this application has come up for final hearing.
3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna Jewelers Pvt. Limited had filed this application for release of certain articles seized by the opposite party no. 2 on the pointing out of Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, brother of Mukul Agarwal, opposite party No. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged in case Crime No. 600 of 1997, under Sections 457, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Nazibabad, District Bijnor on 20.11 1997 against unknown persons and a list of stolen property was given to the Investigating Officer. During course of investigation, one accused namely Angrej Singh was taken into custody, who admitted that he had committed theft in the shop of the applicant at Gorakhpur in the year 1994 and sold it to the opposite party no. 3 namely Dhani Jewelers Chowk Bazar, Nazibabad, Police Station Nazibabad, District Bijnor and also disclosed that the stolen property from the shop of Dhani Jewelers, opposite party no. 3 was sold to the applicant Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna Jewelers Pvt. Limited, Gorakhpur. The statement of the accused is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. On the basis of the statement of the accused, a search was conducted and in the course of search and investigation, a number of jewelry and other costly articles were taken away from the shop of the applicant by police party on the pointing out of Mr. Mukesh Agarwal. A copy of the recovery memo is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is submitted in para 8 of the affidavit that during course of investigation, the applicant submitted all the receipts, cash memos and other relevant documents relating to the articles seized from the shop of the applicant at Gorakhpur and identity was fixed by the applicant. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 18,2,1999 and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate in case No. 478 of 1999. An application for release of the seized jewelry was moved on behalf of the applicant as well as opposite party no, 3. The application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 11.6.1999. Thereafter another application was moved by the opposite party no. 3 before the trial court on 30.8.1999 for summoning the police investigation report and also for releasing the seized articles. The application was entertained vide order dated 1.9.1999. The opposite party no. 2 was directed to produce the entire report. An objection was filed by the applicant praying not to release the jewelry in favour of the opposite party no. 3 unless and until investigation is completed by the Investigating Agency. A copy of the objection is annexed as Annexure-13 to the affidavit. It has been emphatically argued by the counsel for the applicant that dacoity was committed in the applicant's shop regarding which a First Information Report was registered at case Crime No. 341 of 2004, under Sections 395, 397 I.P.C. The applicant submitted that he has also given a list of stolen articles on the very next day i.e. 20.10.1994. However, the court has refused to release the articles by means of the impugned order which is challenged in this application and also a prayer to release the seized articles has been made.
4. I have perused the impugned order. the application has been rejected on the ground that all the seized articles have been kept in the treasury under the double lock and the application was rejected since there were two claimants to the property seized and unless and until the court comes to the definite conclusion regarding ownership, no order could be passed and finally both the applications were rejected by means of the impugned order. In view of the fact that there are rival claimants, I do not think it proper to pass order directing the court to release the property in favour of the one of the parties while the matter is still subjudice. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to issue any direction for release of the seized articles either in favour of the applicant or the opposite party no. 3. However, since the matter is pending since the year 1999, 1 dispose of this application with direction to the court concerned to expedite and complete the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Section 309 Cr.P.C. deals with the powers to postpone or adjourn the proceedings. Section 309 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:-
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings:- (I) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once began, the same shall he continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to he necessary for reasons to be recorded."
5. Section 309 Cr.P.C enjoins upon the court to hold the trial of the accused expeditiously. It is an integral and essential part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. In the circumstances, the court should proceed with the trial on day to day basis and complete it within the stipulated period. While conducting the trial, it is duty of the court to get the seized articles identified by the respective parties and should afford an opportunity to the rival claimants and only after the identity and claim is finally established, the property shall be released in favour of the respective parties.
7. With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.