The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. consisting of Justice Asha Menon observed that discretionary power of Court u/s 482 CrPC can be exercised only when clear perversity or error is disclosed.
Facts
FIR was registered by the petitioner as a partner of respondent No.2 submitting that they had set up a partnership firm for manufacturing remote controls (M/s S.S. Manufacturing). The petitioner suddenly realized that the respondent No.2 had created a parallel company in a different name which was operating from M/s S.S. Manufacturing at the leased premises and the respondent No.2/accused along with a few employees planned a criminal conspiracy to misappropriate M/s S.S. Manufacturing’s finished goods, raw material and machinery hypothecated for their own wrongful gain. As per the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was fully aware of the hypothecation of the machinery to Andhra Bank and the loan, as also the fact that in default of repayment, the loan would be recovered from the property belonging to the petitioner’s father mortgaged to Andhra Bank.
Procedural History
FIR was registered against the respondent No.2 and others for having committed offences u/s 380/406/420/506/120B IPC. Subsequently, Sections 467/468/471 IPC were also added by the Investigating Officer. During investigations, the premises of M/s V.P. Automotive Components were raided, and 8 moulds were seized which belonged to M/s S.S. Manufacturing. On the same day, upon a raid of the premises of M/s LIT India Pvt. Ltd., which was a company that belonged to the respondent No.2, 111 boxes of finished goods/remotes were also seized. The petitioner moved an application u/s 451 CrPC and the 8 moulds were released to him. In separate proceedings, the wife of the respondent No.2, being the Authorised Representative of M/s Rugs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. approached the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for release of 111 boxes of finished goods/remotes and the same were directed to be released to her. The respondent No.2 filed an application before the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking directions to the petitioner to surrender the moulds released to him earlier.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Reliance was placed on certain judgments in support of the contention that the Magistrate had no power to review its order. The respondent No.2’s prayer that the moulds be given to the Investigating Officer, would have only resulted in the ruination of the machinery which was so fundamental to the manufacturing process.
Respondent: In appropriate cases, an interlocutory order, such as a superdari order, could be reviewed. When the first order was passed, no notice was issued to the respondent No.2, though he was 60% shareholder/partner in M/s S.S. Manufacturing. At the time it was passed, the petitioner had misrepresented to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that he continued to be a partner of the partnership firm, whereas at that point of time, the partnership had been dissolved.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed it was proper for the court to have issued notice to the accused/the respondent No.2 herein, before deciding the release of moulds.
Relying on various cases, it was noted that in a petition u/s 482 CrPC, interference by this Court, in exercise of its discretionary power can be only when clear perversity or error is disclosed on the face of the record. But perversity and non-application of mind were clearly absent in the present case. It was also noted that an order u/s 451 CrPC. is of an interlocutory nature since the whole purpose is for safe custody of the goods/property during the pendency of the trial. The Trial Court would not be powerless to modify orders of custody as per changed circumstances as it has the powers to recall entrustment.
Judgment
The Bench was of the view that the impugned order passed after hearing all the parties resulting in the recall of the earlier order cannot be held to be perverse or beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. Hence, no interference was called for by this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC.
Case: Sandeep Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: CRL.M.C. 174/2021
Bench: Justice Asha Menon
Decided on: 18th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
