Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 463 (MP)

Meera Devi v. State of M. P.

2006-03-29

SHEELA KHANNA

body2006
ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for modifying the order dated 14.11.05, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, district Morena in Criminal Case No. 1455/05, whereby the application of the petitioner for taking the seized property (Golden bricks) on her supurdginama was allowed subject to the condition of furnishing surety of Rs. 12,50,000/- of a person of district Morena who is doing business of Gold or of any other person, who owns immovable property in district Morena. 2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is owner of M/s. Meera Jewellers, situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi the accused Manoj Sharma is a servant of her firm. On 4.1.2005, the accused Manoj Sharma was given two bricks of gold (each brick of one kg.) by the petitioner to be delivered to the firm known as "Katra Nawab". But on 5.1.2005 the accused informed the petitioner that the said bricks could not be delivered as due to illness of his father, he had gone to his village Kukthari. It is stated that on the day of occurrence on 21.1.2005, the husband of the petitioner was corning from village Kukthari to Morena and to go to Delhi and the accused was also accompanying him. But on way of Ambah-Porsa Chowraha the husband of the petitioner got down from the bus for urinal and at that time, the accused, finding an opportunity took the bag in which golden bricks were kept and fled away. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Ambah upon which Crime No. 27/05 was registered against the accused for committing an offence punishable under section 380 of IPC. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and the alleged golden bricks were also seized from his custody. After investigation, challan has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, who registered a case bearing Criminal Case No. 1455/05. 3. The petitioner filed an application under section 457 of CrPC for taking the bricks on her supurdginama and by the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 her application was allowed subject to the conditions as mentioned herein above. 3. The petitioner filed an application under section 457 of CrPC for taking the bricks on her supurdginama and by the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 her application was allowed subject to the conditions as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by imposition of the aforesaid condition the petitioner has filed this petition invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a resident of and is doing business in Delhi and she is not a resident of Morena district and she does not know any person of Morena and therefore, it is not possible for her to arrange for surety of a person of Morena district. It is submitted that due to non-fulfillment of the condition of local surety of Morena district, the petitioner could not receive the golden brickes on her supurdginama. It is, therefore, prayed that said condition be modified and instead of this condition, the petitioner may be directed to furnish solvent surety of Delhi. Learned PP. for the respondent State also agreed that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and therefore she is not in a position to furnish local surety of Morena district. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the condition enumerated in the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 regarding furnishing of local surety of a person of Morena district deserves to be modified. The petitioner being the resident of and doing business in Delhi, it is unnatural for her to manage and furnish local surety of Morena district when she frankly submitted that she has no acquittance of any person belonging to district Morena. It is not dispute that the accused has not claimed the seized golden bricks nor any other person has come forward to claim the seized property. On the contrary, the petitioner has filed certain documents showing that she is a bona tide claimant and owner of the seized articles. The apex Court in the case of Motiram and others v. State of M.P. reported in 1979 JLJ I = AIR 1978 SC 1594 has held that the order of rejecting surety because he or his estate was situated in a different district is discriminatory and illegal. In this case also, since the petitioner is not the resident of Morena district. In this case also, since the petitioner is not the resident of Morena district. therefore it is not possible for her to furnish surety of a person 0 Morena district nor it is expected from her to somehow manage to furnish surety from Morena district. At the same time it is also to be kept in mind that the seized property is worth Rs. 12.50.000/-. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice. to give the seized property on supurdginama of the petitioner subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12.50,000/(Rs. twelve lacs and fifty thousands only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 6. Consequently this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 is modified and it is directed that the seized property be given to the petitioner on her supurdginama subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rs. twelve lacs and fifty thousands only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lacs) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.