Manubhai Parsottamdas Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13374 Guj

     R/SCR.A/7680/2021                               ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7680 of 2021

=============================================
                    MANUBHAI PARSOTTAMDAS PATEL
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SALIM M SAIYED(5172) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                          Date : 03/09/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.

2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmada, Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2021, confirming the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narmada, Rajpipla; and further seeks relief to release the muddamal cash to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- in favour of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with the FIR No.11823017210032 of 2021, registered with Rajpipala Police Station, dated 07.01.2021.

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

3. The case of the petitioner is that accused no.1 had contacted the complainant and allured him saying that one Maharaj of Junagadh, Kutchchh produces money by swapping clothes and double the money. The accused assured him to contact the Maharaj, but since the said Maharaj went to Ajmer, the accused took the petitioner to some other Maharaj on the pretext of money to be doubled by swapping clothes.

3.1 It is stated that the said Maharaj asked the complainant to bring Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant had gone with the amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, which he had collected from the sale of crops. Under the guise of multiplying the said amount, the petitioner was taken to secrete place and in connivance of co-accused, the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was looted from the petitioner and therefore the FIR came to be lodged with Rajpipala Police Station. During the course of custodial interrogation, the investigating officer recovered the looted money.

4. Mr. Salim M.Saiyed, learned advocate for the petitioner referring to the cash memos and payment bills submitted that, the petitioner has shown documents regarding the money and police has recovered the alleged money from the accused. He states that it is natural that the accused would have objection for handing over the

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

money to the petitioner. The source of money has been proved by the petitioner; thus, stated that if at all the accused have to prove their ownership, they have right to file Civil Suit, but in the interregnum the said amount is required to be handed over to the petitioner as the amount is of his own business and earnd by selling the crops.

5. The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court in regard to the valuable articles and currency notes, held that no useful purpose would be served to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., at the earliest.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submits that the the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the muddamal cash can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate, still however it was urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

7. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the relevant portion of which reads thus;

"5. Section 451clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as-

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Baswa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v.

State of Mysore and Anr., [1977] 4 SCC 358,

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

9. The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property.

10. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.

7.1 The Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has expressed its view, directing the procedure for handing over currency notes, which is as under:

Valuable Articles and Currency Notes

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or sliver 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 to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

12. For this purposes, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:-

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

(1) preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles:

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security."

8. The power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously, which clearly empowers the Court to order for proper custody of the articles or property pending conclusion of the trial, as owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or its misappropriation. The Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody and if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial.

9. Considering the factual aspects of the case and the principle rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), and as the petitioner has produced documents to show his ownership of the cash amount and as the same has been recovered from the accused during the course of investigation, and that the police has no objection of handing over the said cash amount to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody of the cash, if granted in favour of the petitioner, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution.

R/SCR.A/7680/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Both the orders passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is directed to release the mudamal Cash of Rs.2,60,000/- of the petitioner on condition of furnishing personal bond of the equivalent amount.

10.1 Before handing over the possession of the cash to the petitioner, necessary photographs shall be taken and detailed panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn, shall be drawn for the purpose of trial.

11. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Registry is directed to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. Learned advocate for the petitioner is also permitted to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj