Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1699 (PAT)

Md. Quasim Ansari v. State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi

2007-11-01

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 09/2000 arising out of R.C. 18(A)/ 2000 by which the petitioners prayer for release of four LIC policies as well as the certificate of registration in original of Scooter No. BRH/8255 which was seized by the CBI in connection with the criminal case, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . In paragraph nos. 7 and 21 of the said decision it has been held as follows :- 7. In our view, the powers u/s. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; 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. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time in the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time in the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly." Although the specific issue with regard to documents in the nature of LIC policies have not been dealt with in the said judgment but, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the explanation to Sec. 451 clearly provides that the term "property" includes property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. Thus, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court would apply with equal force with respect to any LIC policy. It is here pointed out by learned counsel for the CBI that only two of the policies bearing numbers respectively 520107302 and 520105314 both dated 28.12.1991 have matured and the other two policies do not appear to have matured. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least the matured policies should be returned to the petitioner or some such order should be passed for their encashment and the amount in question may be kept in the custody of the Court by depositing the same in a term deposit with a nationalized Bank so that it may earn interest and the petitioner may not be put to any pecuniary loss, more so if the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the case. Similarly, with respect to the certificate of registration, learned counsel submits that the principles and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment ought to have been applied by the Court below and the same could have been released. 5. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Similarly, with respect to the certificate of registration, learned counsel submits that the principles and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment ought to have been applied by the Court below and the same could have been released. 5. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the powers u/s. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate (in this case the Special Judge, CBI) and the matter in that case had been remanded to the concerned Magistrate to take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time in police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this application is allowed, the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and pass order in accordance with law. It is expected that the final orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the Court below.