THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9548 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife of A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the dismissed for default order, dated 05.07.2013, in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that she was the wife of A1, resident of Mohalla Tamdampada, 132/14, Shikan, Aligarh, U.P. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. As per the charge sheet filed by the police, on 25.07.2009 at 01.00PM, they apprehended A1 while he was attempting to cheat the gullible public at Ahmed Tea Stall, Riyasath Nagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad by giving fake currency for the genuine currency notes and seized MOs1 to 7 from the possession of A1. MO.1 was 12 bunches i.e. 114 bundles of white papers covered with two genuine 100 rupees currency notes on the bottom and top of the bundles. MO.2 was cash of Rs.50,000/-. MO.3 were four gold rings. MO.4 was a gold bracelet. MO.6 were three gold coins. MO.7 was a travelling bag. During pendency of the case, her husband - A.1 died on 31.08.2009 and hence, the case against A1 was abated. The case against A2 and A3, vide C.C.No.7 of 2010 ended in acquittal on 08.12.2011. It was ordered in the judgment that MOs.1 to 6 shall be confiscated to the State and MO.7 shall be destroyed after appeal time. She filed a petition under Section 458 Cr.P.C. for return of MOs.1 to 7. The same was dismissed vide Crl.M.P.No.5395 of 2012 on 27.11.2012 observing that the cross examination of PW.1 would not show that any suggestion was given to PW.1 that the said property 2 belonged to the accused and it was seized from the possession of the accused and as such she was not entitled for return of the said property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which came up before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the said revision was dismissed for default on 05.07.2013 as there was no representation on her behalf.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non prosecution of the case on 05.07.2013 was due to his being held up in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad in some other cases and gave the list of cases that he attended in City Civil Court on the said date. He further submitted that the dismissal of the revision would cause hardship to the petitioner as she was the real owner of the property, the petitioner was a widow, she was in requirement of the said property during her old age, MO.2 - Cash of Rs.50,000/- was genuine currency notes, the same could not be confiscated to the State and prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cr.R.P.No.52 of 2012.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.
7. Perused the record. The record would disclose that aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.5395 of 2012 in C.C.No.7 of 2010, the petitioner preferred revision vide Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2013 which was on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner belonged to the State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 she engaged the counsel to represent on her behalf and as per the counsel, he was engaged in City Civil Court in other cases due to which, he could not represent the matter before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. As the case was dismissed for default, it was the petitioner, who would be put to severe hardship and would be deprived of the property, which she was claiming it as her own. Hence, it is considered fit to allow the petition by setting aside the dismissal order dated 05.07.2013 and the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case and to decide the petition on merits. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to be diligent enough in prosecuting the case before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and directed to submit his case without taking any further adjournments.
8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed setting aside the dismissal order dated 05.07.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr G.RADHA RANI,J Date:09.12.2020 kvrm