Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 76 (JHR)

Rajesh Gupta v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-01-28

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Revisional Court dated 29.1.2004, allowing the Revision application and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, refusing the prayer of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 to release the cash amount of Rs. 60,000/- in his favour, which was seized by the Police in course of investigation of Jharia P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003 registered under Sections 392 and 411, IPC and directing the trial Court to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. 3. Jharia P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003 was lodged on 30.1.2003 under Sections 392 and 411, IPC by the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 alleging therein that on 30th of January, 2003 at about 9.50 a.m., the miscreants variously armed with Revolver, Bhujali etc. came to the house of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 and on the point of Revolver and Bhujali, they looted cash amounting to Rs. 60,000/-, which was kept in the Almirah and thereafter fled away. 4. In course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of the accused Rajesh Gupta, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,000/- was recovered from his possession. It appears that apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,000/-, a further sum of Rs. 40,000/- was also recovered from the same place in presence of witnesses. The said currency notes of Rs. 60,000/-were bearing the signature of the son of the informant. An application for release of the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was filed by the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 before the trial Court. The prayer for release was objected to, by the prosecution on the ground that the investigation was going on and further that the said currency notes would be required for getting it exhibited during the trial. The learned trial Court by order-dated 25.4.2003, rejected the prayer for release of the said amount. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the trial Court, rejecting to release the currency notes, the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide impugned order. The Revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court and directed to release the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- on proper security in favour of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. 6. The Revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court and directed to release the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- on proper security in favour of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. 6. From the impugned order of the Revisional Court, I find that he has taken into consideration the fact that in the FIR the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 has stated that the cash amounting Rs. 60,000/- was taken away by the miscreants from his Almirah and the Police in course of investigation seized the said very amount from the house of the accused. The said amount was also put on T.I. Parade and the same was identified by the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 as the said currency notes, which were recovered, which contained the signatures of the son of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 and further that the Prosecution had no objection, if the said amount was released in favour of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. The learned Revisional Court has also considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Venkatrao Anantdeo Joshi and Ors. v. Sau Malatibai and Ors., , wherein, it has been held that the currency notes seized in connection with a case, should not be kept in Police Station for a long time. 7. Having minutely gone through the impugned order of the Revisional Court, I find that the Revisional Court was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court and consequently giving direction for release of the aforesaid currency notes of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no illegality in the said impugned order. 8. Accordingly, having found no merit, this Revision application is dismissed.