Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 400 (GAU)

Netai Chandra Lodh v. State of Tripura

2009-06-08

C.R.SARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned PP-in-charge for the State. 2. This is an application under Sections 397/401/482 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala refusing to release the seized amount of Rs. 3,77,519/- in favour of the father of the accused Sri Tinku Lodh, from whose possession the money was seized. 3. The Petitioner's case is, in brief, as follows: On the basis of the GD entry dated 16.1.2006, the Police raided the house of Sri Tinku Lodh, son of the present Petitioner and seized an amount of Rs. 3,77,519/-. On the next date, i.e. 17.1.2006 a complaint was lodged by Sri Subal Chandra Deb alleging therein that Sri Tinku Lodh extorted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him. Accordingly, the Agartala PS Case No. 08 of 2006 G.R. Case No. 70 of 2006 under Sections 384/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against Sri Tinku Lodh aforesaid. As Sri Tinku Lodh was avoiding arrest the Police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons, namely, Biswajit Lodh, Sukesh Lodh and Kalyan Kar under Sections384/34 IPC read with Section 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act vide Agartala PS C/S No. 95 of 2008. The accused Tinku Lodh, from whom the money was seized, was shown as absconder. The petition for release of the said money was filed by Sri Netai Lodh, the father of accused Tinku Lodh, on the basis of a power of attorney executed by the said accused in favour of his father. 4. Having heard both the parties, the learned Magistrate refused to handover the seized money in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that Tinku Lodh, from whom the money was seized, was absconding. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has come up with this revision seeking relief in the forms of setting aside the impugned order and for releasing the seized money in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has come up with this revision seeking relief in the forms of setting aside the impugned order and for releasing the seized money in favour of the Petitioner. Relying on the decision in the case of Surendrabhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that seized money being currency note should not have been retained in the custody of the investigating agency and that the Petitioner, being the power of attorney holder of the person, was entitled to receive the seized money. Refuting the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned PP-in-charge has submitted that Sri Tinku Lodh, from whom the money was seized, was the prime accused and that he was avoiding arrest and appearance in the court. It is further submitted that as Sri Tinku Lodh is avoiding arrest, the money seized from his possession cannot be released in favour of the power of attorney holder at this stage. 6. I have carefully gone through the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the parties, heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order. In the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the principle and the law to be followed at the time of disposing a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that valuable articles such as golden and silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones should not be kept in Police custody for years till trial is over. The Hon'ble Apex Court while entertaining the need for early disposal of seized valuable/articles by passing appropriate order as contemplated under Section 451Cr.P.C. observed as follows: 14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper Panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper Panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that articles should not be kept for long time at the Police Station in any case for not more than 15 days to one month. 7. In the present case before us, the money was seized from Sri Tinku Lodh. Admittedly, Sri Tinku Lodh is avoiding arrest from the date of the said seizure. He has neither appeared before the Court nor approached the Court for getting release of the seized money. His father on the basis of the power of attorney, has approached the Court seeking release of the seized money. If Sri Tinku Lodh is interested to take back the money there is no reason for not appearing before the court seeking the release of the money. By issuing the alleged power of attorney in favour of his father Sri Tinku Lodh tried to avoid arrest or appearance in the said case. From the record, it appears that vide order dated 12.1.2009 warrant of arrest was issued against Sri Tinku Lodh and his appearance could not be procured till 19.3.2009 i.e. the date on which the impugned order was passed. Sri Tinku Lodh, who is not responding to the warrant issued by the Court, cannot seek the benefit by asking the release of the seized money. 8. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate committed no illegality by refusing the release of the seized money in favour of the power of attorney holder of the accused-Petitioner. Therefore, I find no sufficient merit to interfere with the impugned order in the present form. Therefore, I find no sufficient merit to interfere with the impugned order in the present form. However, keeping in mind the directions made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendrabhai Ambalal (supra), the learned Magistrate shall take immediate steps to keep the seized currency note in the Bank locker after proper identification, if not released as per law. 9. With the above direction, this revision petition stands dismissed.