Badri Narayan vs State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has sought the disbursement of the fine, which was directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent-Hemraj Sharma by this Court vide order dt. 24.03.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the idol, of Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji, of the temple was stolen. One Salimudin was convicted and sentenced for offences u/s 457 & 380 IPC for a term of one year. He was also imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- for each offence. Against the conviction & sentence, Salimudin preferred a criminal appeal before the appellate Court. However, vide order dt. 10.12.1997 the learned appellate Court rejected the criminal appeal. Thereafter, Salimudin filed a revision petition before this Court. Vide order dt. 24.03.2009, this Court reduced the sentence to "as already undergone", but increased the fine amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. While passing the said order, this Court observed that Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, Hemraj Sharma; it also imposed a condition that the said amount shall be spent on beautification and for the maintenance of the temple.

The petitioner happens to be a real brother of Hemraj Sharma. According to the petitioner, since the temple is a joint property between three brothers, since the idol that was stolen from the temple has been restored back to the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to share the fine amount which has been directed to be paid to Hemraj Sharma. According to the learned Counsel, the said amount has been deposited before the Executing Court. So far, it has not been paid to Hemraj Sharma. Therefore, a prayer has been made before this Court that part of the fine amount should be disbursed to the petitioner as well.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition is highly misconceived for the following reasons: firstly, this Court has directed that the fine should be paid to be complainant, Hemraj Sharma and not to other members of the family. Although the fine has been deposited in the Executing Court, the same has not been handed over to Hemraj Sharma. Secondly, the petitioner cannot have any locus standi vis-a-vis a fine which has been directed to be paid only to the complainant. Thirdly, this Court has already imposed a condition on Hemraj Sharma that he will utilize the said amount for the beautification and for maintenance of the temple. Hence, the said amount would eventually be used for the maintenance and beautification of a property co-jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother Hemraj Sharma. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance for not receiving the benefit of the fine.

In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby, dismissed.