Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 665 (DEL)

KUSUM LATA v. STATE

2007-03-26

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2007
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) IN these proceedings under Section 482 the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which her revision was rejected. The petitioner had sought for release of the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. Her application under Section 451 Cr. P. C. was declined. ( 2 ) THE second respondent, accused of committing offences under Sections 408/409/420/380/120b, Indian Penal Code i. e. of removing certain examination papers from the possession of the Central Board of Secondary Education and selling them to the co-accused. It was alleged that after his arrest, and pursuant to a disclosure statement, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was recovered from the premises of the present petitioner who is his mother. ( 3 ) THE petitioner moved the trial Court for release of the amount contending that they belonged to her and that she was not connected with the allegations or the crime. The application also made disclosure of the source of income. However, the trial Court declined the request; that order was affirmed in revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel contended that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the impugned order is not interfered with and that the amount would not be available for utilization by her. It was contended that under somewhat similar circumstances in Crl. M. C. No. 4098/03, which was disposed off on 27. 05. 05, this Court had directed the return of similar amounts to the person who had claimed them, subject to certain conditions. Counsel also submitted that the Court can likewise impose such conditions as are appropriate having regard to the fact that the trial could be prolonged. ( 5 ) THE petition was opposed by counsel for the State who submitted that the petitioner availed of the revisional remedy and that there is no infirmity in the approach of the Courts below. It was contended that as per the allegations, the petitioner's son, an employee in the CBSE had removed the question papers, and obtained the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs. Pursuant to his arrest and as a result of his disclosure statement, the amount was recovered from the petitioner's premises. It was contended that as per the allegations, the petitioner's son, an employee in the CBSE had removed the question papers, and obtained the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs. Pursuant to his arrest and as a result of his disclosure statement, the amount was recovered from the petitioner's premises. The detail that the premises were owned by the mother, the petitioner, it is submitted, ought not to obscure the circumstances and that the amount was essentially case property which had to be dealt with as per the discretion exercisable by the trial Court. ( 6 ) DURING the course of proceeding this Court had directed by order dated 25. 04. 06 that the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs should be deposited with the registrar General in the form of a fixed deposit receipt initially for a period of one year. ( 7 ) THE Court, while considering the request for release of case property exercised its discretion under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The general rule in such circumstances is that if the goods or properties are moveable or perishable in nature, it would be appropriate that they are returned to the person entitled to it, prima facie showing rights over it. However, in other circumstances, the Court is not bound by any such rule. In the present case, the disputed amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in the form of currency notes, seized pursuant to the disclosure statement prima facie, constituted case property. No doubt the present petitioner, the accused mother asserts her right over it. All these were taken into consideration by the Court while declining the application for release of the amount. ( 8 ) IN the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that no infirmity can be found with the approach of the Courts below requiring interference. However, in the light of the order dated 25. 04. 06, it is hereby directed that the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited in the form of an FDR with the Registrar shall be duly discharged/ endorsed in favour of the trial Court within two weeks. The amount shall be retained in the form of fixed deposit in the name of the Court with the concerned nationalized bank. The Court shall ensure that receipts yield the best rates of interest and are renewed periodically subject to the final orders. The amount shall be retained in the form of fixed deposit in the name of the Court with the concerned nationalized bank. The Court shall ensure that receipts yield the best rates of interest and are renewed periodically subject to the final orders. Liberty granted to the parties to seek appropriate directions from trial Court with fresh applications having regard to the progress of the trial. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.