A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice P. Velmurugan refused to quash the order where the CBI was directed to investigate the case of 2 stolen ancient idols of Raja Raja Cholan and Logamahadevi displayed for public view in the Sarabhai Foundation's Museum which was alleged to be unlawfully removed from the Tanjore Bragatheeswarar Temple in late 1960s.
Brief Facts:
The crux of the prosecution case, as found in the impugned FIR was that 2 idols i.e., Raja Raja Cholan and Logamahadevi idols displayed for public view in the Sarabhai Foundation's Museum alleged to be of the idols unlawfully removed from the Tanjore Bragatheeswarar Temple in late 1960s. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the two idols were stolen in the Temple in late 1960s, whereas, the two idols were in safe custody from the year 1942. The same was sent to the Royal Academy of Arts, London, during 1947-48 for exhibition and thereafter safely returned, which is also proved. The petitioner Foundation was a charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act 1950.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned senior counsel quoting the method of purchasing the two idols contended that if the two idols were stolen by the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution, it is against common sense to place the stolen articles in public view in a museum. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unless there are specific allegations against an individual for the commission of a non-cognizable offence, the investigation agency cannot name a person as an offender. In the present case, there was no specific allegation against the petitioner except the allegation that the idols are found in the Museum, which does not constitute an offence.
The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner and Sarabhai family have contributed monetarily in the field of science, literature, and art to the society and there was no motive to acquire any property in a manner not known to law. Hence, the present case registered against the petitioner must be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the two idols were stolen from the Tanjore Brahadeeswarar Temple and the same was displayed in the petitioner's Museum. Hence, after obtaining the necessary orders, the same were seized and the present case was registered against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent CBI submitted that in this case, the investigation was pending and the petitioner could always establish his defence during the course of an investigation or during trial if the charge sheet is laid against the petitioner. Therefore, there was no reason to quash the case in Crime No.75of 2018 and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The fact is that in this case investigation was pending, and hence this Court was of the view that since the matter pertains to the theft of idols, which are the antique treasure of this Country, after thorough investigation only it would come to light whether idols stolen in the Tanjore Brahadeeswar Temple and the idols displayed in the petitioner's Museum were one and same or not. The judges observed that it was premature to say anything about the identity of the idols and to declare the ownership of the suspected two idols. Even though the Court had inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same was held to be not automatic and it has to be exercised sparingly. Since this Court found that there were specific allegations attributed against the petitioner and the idols were also recovered from the petitioner's Museum, there was no ground to quash the case at that stage.
The decision of the Court:
The original criminal petition stood dismissed. The petitioner was set at liberty to take all its defence during trial after the charge was laid by the third respondent CBI.
Case Title: Sarabhai Foundation vs State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.19904 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10615 & 10616 of 2018
Coram: Justice P. Velmurugan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Ramesh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri (R1 and R2); Mrs. G. Vrinda Ramesh (R3); M/s. S. Senthilnathan (R4)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :