The Karnataka High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed and has said that if gold bullion or gold ornaments are seized during the investigation of an offence, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the complainant/victim/applicant. (M/S Namboor Jewellers v. State by Lashkar Police Station)
Facts of the case
In the case at hand, a petition was filed by M/S Namboor Jewellers who had previously approached the trial court by filing an application under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, seeking interim custody of gold bullion seized in a case registered against one Hameed Ali for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. In the said crime, during the investigation, the police recovered half a kilogram of gold from the shop of the petitioner.
The reason rendered by the learned Magistrate to decline the application, as it concerns the gold bullion of the petitioner, was erroneous and runs counter to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the victim is entitled to in law for an interim custody of the seized gold bullion, which even in terms of the investigation belongs to the petitioner. The reason rendered by the learned Magistrate to decline the application particularly, insofar as it concerns the gold bullion of the petitioner, was erroneous and runs counter to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State Of Gujarat((2002) 10 SCC 283).
Learned HCGP vehemently objected to the contentions so advanced and admited that the P.F.No.31/2020 belongs to the petitioner but cannot be released till the trial proceedings are completed and would seek dismissal of the petition.
Courts Observation & Order
The bench at the very outset observed, “With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires acceptance. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.”
The bench further observed, “If the order passed by the learned Magistrate is considered on the bedrock of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, it would on the face of it, run foul, as the Court holds that there are no sufficient grounds made out by the petitioner for interim custody of the gold bullion.”
The bench further remarked, “In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case, that the gold bullion or gold ornaments if seized, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant/applicant.
If the order passed by the learned Magistrate is considered on the bedrock of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, it would on the face of it, run foul, as the Court holds that there are no sufficient grounds made out by the petitioner for interim custody of the gold bullion.”
The bench allowed the petition filed by M/S Namboor Jewellers and directed handing over of interim custody of the gold seized by the police.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
