Almost five decades after the theft ₹At 7:65 a.m., a Mumbai court closed a dormant 1977 case involving two anonymous suspects and an accuser who remained missing despite years of law enforcement efforts. The decision represents one of several recent rulings in an ancient proceeding that has remained stagnant and overwhelmed the judicial framework.
The Mazagaon court closed the 1977 case as part of a mission to clear up inheritance disputes where defendants died, remained anonymous or remained lost. This 1977 theft involved two unknown individuals accused of theft ₹7.65, a remarkable figure fifty years ago. However, the pair were never tracked down despite multiple arrest warrants, forcing the court case to be put on hold indefinitely.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Aarti Kulkarni, presiding over the Mazagaon court on January 14, closed the proceedings saying the file was almost half a century old and remained “uselessly disposed of without progress”.
“It is taking more than enough time. There is no point in leaving the matter pending,” the court said in its order.
The court acquitted the two suspects accused under Section 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that the amount recovered ₹7.65 to be returned to the victim.
“If the whistleblower is not caught, the amount will be deposited in the government account after the appeal period,” the court said in the order.
He found this out because the stolen cash was below ₹2,000, the case was categorized for summary hearing under Section 260 of the Penal Code, which allows for speedy trial of petty offences, including robbery, where the value of the property is minimal to ensure speedy resolution.
Similarly, in a thirty-year-old case, the court released a suspected accused under the Indian Passport Act and the Foreigners Act, saying he had been missing since 1995 when a formal charge sheet was filed.
A 2003 reckless driving trial shared a comparable outcome from a magistrate judge as a law enforcement update confirmed that not only the suspect, but also the main complainant and all bystanders could no longer be located. The accused was charged under Sections 279 (reckless driving) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or safety) of the IPC.
There is no logical chance of finding the suspect soon, the bench observed, concluding that keeping the record open forever would be inappropriate.