Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 711 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-21

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha. J.-The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order impugned dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2010 by which the order dated 25.6.2010 recorded by the CJM, Sahibganj in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 216 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 493 of 2009 was set aside. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the. Officer-in-Charge of Sahibganj Police Station on secret information that Rose Valley Company was cheating the local people by claiming to refund the double amount within a year on the investment made and was preparing forged documents, the informant Officer-in-Charge visited the office of the said company and asked the Branch Manager to produce the memorandum of Articles of the Company and also registration as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. But as the same could not be produced, the police registered a case under Sections 467 /468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 58(B)(5-A) of the R.B.I. Act and seized the documents, vouchers, money receipts, computers, ledger books, forms and other signed papers of Rose Valley Company with other valuable articles. The petitioner was arrested on the same day but later on granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1043 of 2010 on 25.2.2010 considering the fact that Rose Valley Company was a licencee Company of Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited, holding licence. The petitioner then rued an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj for release of the seized articles but it was rejected vide order dated 25.6.2010 on the ground that investigation was in progress and that items seized as contained in Sr. No. 1 of 46 of the seizure list including the computers and cash book entries were essential items required during course of investigation. Against the impugned order the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2011 before the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj which was also rejected vide order dated 21.9.2010 observing that the matter was still under investigation and that the relevant registers, documents, ledger books and accounts book were relevant documents for investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Against the impugned order the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2011 before the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj which was also rejected vide order dated 21.9.2010 observing that the matter was still under investigation and that the relevant registers, documents, ledger books and accounts book were relevant documents for investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar. appealing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the police had suo motu raided the business premises of the petitioner merely on suspicion that his company was not having proper licence under Section 54-B (5-A) of the R.B.I. Act, 1934 so the documents, computers, hard disk seized by the police were not relevant for investigation and did if at all these documents were required then its copy could be made available for the use of the I.O. by returning the originals to the petitioner. The main part of the investigation was virtually over because earlier also the Superintendent of Police had made supervision of the investigation and had asked the General Manager. R.B.I. to which reply was made that the Company under the name and style Rose Valley Company was registered having its Registration No. 2189311 dated 3.5.1999 and certificate of incorporation and certificate of commencement of business were issued from the Registrar of the Company. West Bengal and this fact was immediately replied by the R.B.I. clarifying that the Company of the petitioner did not fall within the purview of R.B.I. and its activities were properly regularized by National Housing Bank (Annexure-3). 4. Learned counsel Mr. Kumar further submitted that petitioner-company was having licence under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India which could be apparent from the list of the Ministry or Corporate Affairs, Government of India at column No.7 where Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited was listed from which it could be apparent that the petitioner-company was a recognized company, working under valid documents and therefore, the petitioner suffered irreparable loss on the rejection of his petitions for the release of his valuable documents, register books, computers and hard disk. The computer and hard disk with its accessories could be damaged and affected by virus with the lapse of time and that the data stored therein might be lost in due course and therefore, it was necessary in the interest of justice that the seized articles especially computers and its accessories could be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. By filing a supplementary affidavit the petitioner undertook to submit a compact disk of the hard disk of the C.P.U. of the Company and also undertook to submit photo copies of the documents as seized by the police and therefore, the seized articles may be released in view of the above undertaking. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State-Opposite party through the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj it was stated that the seized articles were the case property being the evidence available with the Investigating Officer and the same may be returned to the petitioner after conclusion of the trial because hard disk of computer in which data of business transaction were loaded can be destroyed or damaged by way of tampering the evidence in case articles were released in favour of the petitioner and that the investigation of the case was still going on. The counter-affidavit contended that the Company of the petitioner had been collecting money from the public and some account books were maintained and from perusal of which it transpired that the Company was collecting money from the general public under the insurance premium in the name of L.I.C. and G.I.C. and the rest of the amount used to be invested in the real estate in contravention of the Rules and Regulation and that the business activities of the Company was being carried out illegally. As such under the circumstances, articles found in the office of the Company, seized in presence of the witnesses about 46 in number were computer and hard disk, C.P.U. accessories like monitor, mouse, key board, U.P.S., printing ledge books of the year 2009, daily business ledge book, attendance register, vouchers relating to payment of commission to the agent voucher register of G.I.C. payment, encashment slip book and different forms deposited by the depositors and many other items were relevant items from investigation. It was further stated that business of the Company was carried out illegally against the provisions of R.B.I. Act, 1934. It was further stated that business of the Company was carried out illegally against the provisions of R.B.I. Act, 1934. It was further stated that during investigation the witness had supported the allegation. It could be gathered that though a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- was collected from the public that would be doubted but the same was neither entered in the ledger book nor signed with endorsement by any of the officers of the Company besides other discrepancies. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments for the parties. I find that the investigation of the case is still going on and final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is yet to be submitted. In such situation, it would not be appropriate to record an order for the release of the seized items in favour of the petitioner as contained in the seizure list. This petition is devoid of merit, accordingly, it is dismissed, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to me a petition afresh of the submission of final report before the appropriate Court at the appropriate time. Let the investigation be expedited so as to conclude within a reasonable time, preferably within two months keeping in view that the police case was instituted in 2009. Petition dismissed.