Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1286 (RAJ)

Babu Lal Soni v. The State of Rajasthan

2009-05-11

S.P.PATHAK

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar Camp Srimadhopur in Cr.Revision Petition No.08/2009 whereby the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Reengus titled as Babu Lal Soni v. State of Raj. has been upheld. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise for disposal of this petition are that on 23.2.2009 at the time of staging Nakabandi at 1:00 P.M. (Noon) at National Highway No.11 a Indica Car bearing No.RJ-14 C 1322 was stopped by the police party and on checking the vehicle petitioner was found having a bag in his hand and when the bag was opened it was found containing 1.276 Kg. Gold and also general currency notes worth Rs.3,03,000/- were found.as the same were found without proper explanation. Therefore, they were seized under section 102 Cr.P.C.. the Indica Car was also seized in absence of relevant documents in relation to the vehicle. In the vehicle along with petitioner two more persons were there. All of them were arrested under Section 109 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court for supardgi of the gold and the general currency notes recovered from the petitioner and seized by the police. The learned trial court finding that in relation to the seized gold and money Customs Department and Income Tax Department were intimated, therefore, without inquiry by them to deliver the gold and money on Supardginama to the petitioner was not justified and rejected the application vide its order dated 26.2.2009. The petitioner having felt aggrieved filed a revision petition No.8/2009 and same was decided on 23.3.2009. The learned revisional court finding that for the purpose of Supardgi of gold to the petitioner vouchers submitted did not appear genuine and matter was required to be inquired into by the Customs and the Sales Tax Departments and since the petitioner did not file no objection certificates by the Customs Department and the Sales Tax Department, therefore, rejected the revision petition. Hence this petition has been filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Hence this petition has been filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the condition to seize the articles is that there must be some suspicion about the articles which were found in possession of the petitioner in suspicious circumstances or are stolen. In the instant case, no such circumstance was available, therefore, seizure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. was bad in law. It has also been contended that no body has claimed the gold or the money, which was seized by the police and found with the petitioner while he was in a car. It is also contended that petitioner is a goldsmith, he collect the ornaments from different persons and also doing the business of making jewelery and is a resident of Sikar but doing his jewelery work at Jaipur. Therefore, in that connection on every Saturday he leaves Jaipur for Sikar and at that time gold ornaments made for customers and the money collected from the customers at Jaipur remains with him, the same was seized by the police illegally. It is also contended that gold which was seized and found with the petitioner was obtained by him from Sangat Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. And now it is not possible for the petitioner to return the above gold after preparing jewelery from the gold which has been seized by the police. It is also contended that the amount recovered is also of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the Customs Department and the Income Tax Department have already been intimated about the seizure of gold and money from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, unless matter is inquired by them or a no objection certificate is filed by them till then the above articles are not required to be given on Supardginama to the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. 8. In the present matter, it is to be seen as to whether the courts below committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for supardgi of the articles seized from the possession of the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. 8. In the present matter, it is to be seen as to whether the courts below committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for supardgi of the articles seized from the possession of the petitioner. It appears that the courts below have declined supardgi for the reason that firstly the vouchers submitted in relation to the gold by the petitioner before the trial court did not appear genuine and secondly as the information was given to the Income Tax Department and the Customs Department, therefore, matter was required to be inquired into by them before passing order regarding delivery of the articles before giving on Supardginama to the petitioner. 9. The contention of the learned counsel that as no body has come forward to claim ownership of the gold and money, therefore, the trial court as well as the revisional court committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for Supardgi is not liable to be accepted at this stage because when the trial court as well as the revisional court found that there was no proper explanation available with the petitioner in relation to the gold and money recovered from his possession and the petitioner did not produce no objection certificates from the Customs/Tax Departments and, therefore, the courts below declined supardgi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the courts below are illegal and unjust in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this matter, huge quantity of gold and money has been recovered and unless the petitioner satisfies completely about the possession of the same by filing proper documents and no objections certificates from the Customs/Tax Departments till then petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that gold and money recovered from his possession should be handed over to him. The Cr.Misc. Petition is liable to be dismissed with the observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court after obtaining no objection certificates from the above referred departments in relation to the seized articles and upon moving any such application by the petitioner, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. Petition is liable to be dismissed with the observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court after obtaining no objection certificates from the above referred departments in relation to the seized articles and upon moving any such application by the petitioner, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed with the observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh application before the trial court after obtaining no objection certificates from the above referred departments in relation to the seized articles and upon moving any such application by the petitioner, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******