Criminal Application (Apl) No.545 of 2014

10th September, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri S.V. SIRPURKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. RASHI DESHPANDE

Cases Cited:
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 363 (S.C.)=(2002) 10 SCC 283 [Para 7]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard learned Counsel Shri S.V. Sirpurkar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rashi Deshpande for the non-applicant/ State.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code arises out of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.82/2013 dated 05-12-2013 whereby the application filed under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant for grant of muddemal property, which consists of cash of Rs.1,26,500/- on supratnama came to be rejected.

4. It appears that on 03-4-2013 raid was carried out by Special Branch, Gadchiroli, at Hotel Sushilka, Chandrapur and by arresting three persons had recovered genuine currency notes along with fake currency notes, which came to be seized with one vehicle as same was found therein. Accordingly, Crime No.99/2013 was registered under Sections 489-A, B, C, D, E, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

5. After the applicant was released on bail, he filed application for release of genuine currency notes to the extent of Rs.1,26,500/- on supratnama, which application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court. The learned trial Court appears to have observed that the currency notes claimed by the applicant would be required during the trial for the purpose of its identification and thus rejected the application.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application by placing on record affidavit-in-reply and has raised similar ground that the seized currency notes though genuine would be required for the purpose of identification during trial as there is possibility of applicant spending the same.

7. The learned Counsel for the applicant relying upon the decision in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 363 (S.C.)] has submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the application is liable to be allowed. In the decision cited above, it is observed that the powers under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised promptly and at the earliest and guidelines are laid down in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the said judgment with reference to valuable articles and currency notes, which are reproduced below :-

"11. 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 to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.

12. For this purpose, 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 :

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama 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.

13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition.

14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes similar procedure can be followed."

8.In view of above guidelines, application is liable to be allowed. The genuine currency notes of Rs.1,26,500/- seized from the custody of the applicant in Crime No.99/2013 shall be returned to the applicant on supratnama on his executing a security bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

9. The Investigating Officer before handing over the said currency notes to the applicant shall prepare proper panchnama mentioning therein the serial numbers of the currency notes, its denomination etc. As even otherwise the currency notes claimed on supratnama being genuine, may not be required for its identification at the time of trial and as such it is not necessary to impose condition upon the applicant to produce or to not part away with said amount pending trial.

10. The Investigating Officer shall draw the panchnama, as above stated within a period of three weeks from receipt of writ of this Court.

11. Application accordingly stands disposed of as allowed.

Application allowed.