Lakhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4526 MP

                                       1




     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                         MCRC NO. 2750/2020

Lakhan Singh, S/o Late Shri
Ganpat Singh Rajput, Occupation-
Government Contractor, Aged
about 60 years, R/o Village Mudra
Jaruwakheda, P.S. Naryawali,
District Sagar (MP).

                                                     .....PETITIONER

                                      Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, through
Police     Station     Narayanwali,
District Sagar (M.P.).

                                                   .....RESPONDENT

Date of Judgment/Order 30.03.2022

Bench Constituted        Single Bench

Order delivered by       Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Dwivedi

Whether approved for No
reporting

Name of counsel for For Petitioner: Shri T.S. Ruprah, Senior
                    Advocate assisted by Shri Harmeet Singh
parties
                    Ruprah, Advocate.
                    For Respondent: Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel
                         Lawyer
                                      2




Reserved on: 12.01.2022
Delivered on: 30.03.2022

                                ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.11.2019

passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, District Sagar in Criminal

Revision No. 171/2019 whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the

revision filed by the petitioner affirming the order dated 25.09.2019

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Crime No.

168/2019 whereby the application under Section 457 preferred by the

petitioner for release of the seized amount has been rejected.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is a

government contractor and a contract was awarded to him and work order

was also issued in his favour for supply of DI Pipe of Jindal Balaji and

Electro Company. As per the petitioner, accused contacted him and

assured for supply of the said material within stipulated time. On the said

assurance of the accused, petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- to

them. Thereafter, petitioner requested the accused persons to supply the

material required under the contract, but, they did not supply the said

material. Ultimately, when even after repeated request, the accused did not

supply the material, the petitioner demanded his money back whereupon

the accused issued a cheque of Rs.92,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner,

but the same was dishonoured.

3. After dishonouring of the cheque, the petitioner lodged an FIR at

Police Station, Naryawali, District Sagar, which was registered as Crime

No. 168/2019 and offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B

and 406 was registered against the accused persons. After registration of

the crime, during investigation, the police seized an amount of Rs.

26,29,000/- from the possession of the accused person and after

completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Sagar and the trial is going on.

4. After seizure of the said amount from the accused persons, the

petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure asking that the said amount be given to him on supradnama.

The accused persons did not object the said application, but the trial court

rejected the said application vide order dated 25.09.2019 saying that the

investigation is still going on and the seized amount is the subject matter

of trial and, therefore, the order for releasing the said amount on

supradnama cannot be passed.

5. The order dated 25.09.2019 was assailed by the petitioner by filing

a revision before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, but the

Revisional Court also rejected the revision vide order dated 07.11.2019

saying that the seized amount was the part of investigation and it was also

not clear that the alleged amount was seized from the accused persons,

although the accused had not opposed the prayer of releasing the said

amount.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner to validate his claim has only

pressed upon the fact that when there was no objection by the accused

persons, from whom the said amount was seized, to release the seized

amount, both the court below should not have rejected the applications for

release of the said amount on supradnama only on the ground that the said

amount was the subject matter of the trial and the trial was still going on.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported

the orders passed by both the courts below and submitted that the courts

below have rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on the

ground that the seized amount was the subject matter of trial.

8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record. It is clear from the orders passed by both the

courts below, that the applications filed by the petitioner were rejected on

the sole ground that the seized amount was the subject matter of trial and,

therefore, the same cannot be given on supradnama, but, I am of the view

that when there is no opposition of the accused persons from whom

amount has been seized, merely because the trial is going on, the said

amount, which is said to have been paid by the petitioner being a

complainant before the police, cannot be refused to be released.

9. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the

applications filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The orders dated 07.11.2019 passed by IV Additional Session Judge,

Sagar in Criminal Revision No. 171/2019 and 25.09.2019 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Crime No. 168/2019 are hereby

set aside. It is directed that the amount of Rs. 26,29,000/- seized from the

accused persons be released and handed over to the petitioner on

Supradnama subject to his furnishing an undertaking that he shall deposit

the whole amount given to him on supradnama immediately, if directed

by the trial court in this regard and simultaneously he shall also furnish a

solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Dwivedi) Judge

Raghvendra

RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA 2022.04.01 10:56:36 +05'30'