Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 478 (ALL)

Mohammad Aaved v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2011-02-25

S.C.AGARWAL

body2011
S.C. Agarwal, J.:- This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment dated 31.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in criminal revision no.312 of 2010 (annexure 10 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar (annexure 8 to the writ petition) with a further prayer for release of the seized property. 2. The facts are that on the basis of a written report submitted by Aakashdeep Sharma, F.I.R. was lodged at crime no.452 of 2010 under sections 379, 420 IPC and sections 63, 64, 69 of Copy Right Act at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahar against the petitioner Mohammad Aaved @ Aaved Gazi and his brother Javed. It was alleged that the complainant was the authorized person on behalf of M/s. Zee Turner Ltd. and the accused persons, who were cable operators, were unauthorizedly distributing signals relating to Zee T.V. Channels. Certain electronic items including transmitter boxes, colour T.V., DTH boxes, DTH service cards etc. were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The application for release of the seized articles was moved by the petitioner on 16.7.2010 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, which was rejected by order dated 19.7.2010. Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this petition. 3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was authorized person to distribute/transmit signals of Zee T.V. channels, but due to appointment of a second distributor for the district, some dispute arose between the parties and a false F.I.R. was lodged. It was further submitted that the license of the petitioner under Entertainment Tax was renewed by District Magistrate, Buladshahar on 12.10.2009 and the petitioner was authorized cable operator. The goods seized by the police are the property of the petitioner and are required for running of his business. If these articles are kept in police custody for a long period, they are likely to become junk and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same at the police station. These articles are electronic goods. 5. The goods seized by the police are the property of the petitioner and are required for running of his business. If these articles are kept in police custody for a long period, they are likely to become junk and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same at the police station. These articles are electronic goods. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the petitioner was found relaying Zee T.V. channels without proper authorization and, therefore, the application for release has been rightly rejected. 6. Application for release was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of cable network piracy and the seized goods are case property and investigation is pending. The revision was also dismissed on the same grounds. Now more than seven months have passed. Investigation must have been completed. The seized goods are electronic items. If they are kept at the police station for a long time, they are likely to become junk. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the seized goods. 7. The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat [A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 638] has held that the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously and articles are not to be kept for a long time at the police station. 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that orders passed by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. The Magistrate ought to have directed release of the seized articles in favour of the petitioner on furnishing adequate security. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.8.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar as well as order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar are set-aside. 10. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshshar is directed to release the seized articles in favour of the petitioner on furnishing adequate security on the condition that these articles shall be produced in Court as and when directed by the Court for the purpose of evidence and other purposes.