Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 511 (MP)

OM PRAKASH CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF MP

2010-05-03

S.C.SINHO

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) S.C. Sinho, J. Applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 293/09, whereby confirming the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 317/2009. ( 2. ) The brief facts of the case are that police station, Chorhata, district Rewa has registered Crime No. 312/2008 under Section 392 of the IPC against the accused persons on a F.I.R., lodged by applicant/complainant, an Ex- serviceman posted as Security Guard in J.P. Cement Rewa. Applicant has licensed gun no. 16285-04 with licence no. 13690021 AL/X. The accused persons have looted the gun of the applicant because of which applicant is facing great hardships. He further stated in the application that if the gun is not given to him on supuradnama there is danger of its parts being rustic and damaged. The learned C.J.M. Vide order dated 4.2.2009 ( Ex. P-2) dismissed the application holding that the gun is the subject matter of evidence during trial. The revisional Court also dismissed the revision by impugned order (Ex. P-1), holding that the applicant has challenged the order of C.J.M., after six months and since then the circumstances has changed as such revision has become infructuous and further given liberty to applicant to apply again before C.J.M. Rewa u/s 451 of Cr.P.C. if advised so. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the applicant Shri V.C. Rai submitted that applicant is an Ex-serviceman and working as Security Guard in J.P. Cement, Rewa. He has licensed gun No. 16285-04 with a valid licence No. 13690021 AL/X. He has lodged the report that the accused persons in the said case have looted the gun, both the Courts below have rejected his application for interim custody of gun under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. ( 4. ) Learned Panel Lawyer Shri Arvind Singh, supported the impugned order. ( 5. ) The gun was seized from the custody of accused but they have not come with the claim that gun do not belongs to the applicant or belongs to him. Applicant has specifically stated that seized gun No. 16285/04 is owned by him, who is a Ex-serviceman and has licence No. 13690021 AL/X, and he is working as a Security Guard in J.P. Cement Factory, and gun is required for his duty. Applicant has specifically stated that seized gun No. 16285/04 is owned by him, who is a Ex-serviceman and has licence No. 13690021 AL/X, and he is working as a Security Guard in J.P. Cement Factory, and gun is required for his duty. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Apex Court has laid down that in no circumstance a seized article should be kept at the police station/Nazarat for a period of more than 15 days. In support of his submission and placed reliance upon the decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs, State of Guirat AIR 2003 SC 638 where it has been held in para-21. "However, those 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 under Section 451, Cr.P.C., are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at 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." In view of aforesaid decision of the Apex Court article should not be kept for a long time at a Police Station/Nazarat. ( 7. ) In the present case as mentioned earlier learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that seized gun will be required at the time of evidence, in the same manner learned Sessions Judge has acted in a very casual manner, while dismissing the revision and giving liberty to applicant to file afresh application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., if advised so, when revision was filed before him it was his pious duty to pass an appropriate order. Normally every seized article in a case under Section 392 or 379 of IPC etc., is required at the time of evidence. and on such grounds application should never be disallowed. Normally every seized article in a case under Section 392 or 379 of IPC etc., is required at the time of evidence. and on such grounds application should never be disallowed. Where stolen or looted articles are seized by police it should be released on supuradnama to the person who prima facie establish his possession over the articles if the gun in question kept in police station or Nazarat during pendency of trial is likely to deteriorate its condition and may virtually be reduced to scrap. ( 8. ) I am sorry to say that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders in a very irresponsible manner, without going through the spirit of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and applicant is unnecessary roaming from this Court to that Court from 4.2.2009. Apex Court has held again and again that normally question of ownership is not to be decided while disposing an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. ( 9. ) It seems, that both the Courts below are not aware of aforesaid law laid down by Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai (Supra). It will be proper to re-produce Section 451 of Cr.P.C. S. 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases:-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "property" includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. ( 10. ) On bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is very clear that while releasing the property on furnishing security (Supuradnama) title or proof of ownership is not to be inquired at all. Both the Courts were not justified in disallowing the application. ( 10. ) On bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is very clear that while releasing the property on furnishing security (Supuradnama) title or proof of ownership is not to be inquired at all. Both the Courts were not justified in disallowing the application. The Court could have granted the gun to applicant on interim custody with a condition that whenever gun will be required it will be produce by the applicant before Court. . ( 11. ) On the facts and aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. Let the seized licensed gun No. 16285/ 04 to be delivered on supuradnama of Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant, on condition that it shall be produce in the Court as and when required before the trial Court. ( 12. ) In the result, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed, accordingly. Petition allowed.