Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2591 (MAD)

K. Rajagopal v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

2012-06-21

S.MANIKUMAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, the respondent herein to hand over his Locker Key of Locker No.A-50, of Tamilnadu State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Chennai – 1, Computer CPU and other seized materials. 2. The petitioner has submitted that he was working as a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies / General Manager of Integrated Co-operative Development Project, Thiruvarur and retired from service on 31.03.2004. Earlier he was working in the Cooperative department. His house was raided on 08.02.2003 in connection with a case in Cr.No.3/AC/2003 by the Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Chennai. In search notice, it was stated that the then President of the Kaveripattinam Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society and officials of the said society were believed to have committed irregularities and caused financial loss to the Government. The petitioner was also served with a Mahazar statement of the inventories made relating to the moveables in the house and the jewels taken. 3. Later on, the petitioner's locker in Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai was also searched on 10.02.2003 and according to the petitioner, no incriminating materials or documents were found. It is his further contention that the Inspector of police, has told him that the locker key and other materials would be returned as they were not connected with the case. 4. In addition to the above, the petitioner has submitted that his son's bethrothal was held on 03.03.2004 and the marriage was arranged on 06.06.2004 and contending inter alia that the jewels were required for the marriage, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition for a mandamus stated supra. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, in his counter affidavit has submitted that during the year 2000, the Coconut Growers / Farmers faced unbearable hardship due to unusual fall in the price of Copra and therefore, the Government of India implemented 'Price Support Scheme' to alleviate the financial hardship faced by the coconut growers by way of procuring copra from the real coconut growers at the rate of Rs.32.50p per Kg., while the market price of the copra was about Rs.24/- per Kg. While implementing the scheme certain officials of NAFED, TANFED and KAPCM, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy have entered into with some private coconut traders and others, created false records as if 4,981.900 tonnes of Copra was procured for Rs.16,19,11,750/-at the rate of Rs.32.30 per Kg., from the coconut growers without actually making such procurement and caused loss of about Rs.3,28,48,000/- to the Government and corresponding pecuniary advantage for themselves. After making a confidential enquiry on the basis of credible information received in this regard a case in Cr.No.3/AC/2003 was registered in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment at Dharmapuri. Many accused moved this Court and stayed the proceedings. The preliminary investigation carried out during the initial stage revealed that certain accused involved in case had some dealings with this petitioner Tr. K.Rajagopal who was formerly P.A.to the then Minister for Food and Co-operation. Hence, it became necessary to conduct search to secure the incriminating materials from the possession of this petitioner. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, has further submitted that a search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner on 08.02.2003 in the presence of two responsible Government servants and that inventory was also taken and as it was bonafidely believed that the computer hard disk found in the house of the petitioner might contain incriminating information, the same was seized. Besides certain documents and key of the Locker of Tamilnadu State Apex Cooperative Bank, were also found during the house search. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, submitted that the locker of the petitioner in Tamilnadu Apex Co-operative Ltd., Chennai, was also searched on 10.02.2003 in the presence of respectable witnesses including the official of the bank and of the petitioner. The description of the jewels found in the locker were mentioned in the proceedings prepared for the search conducted in this regard. The documents and material objects seized during the search were promptly produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri, wherefrom they were returned to the investigating officer for the purpose of the investigation. As on date of the filing of the counter affidavit, the respondent has submitted that investigation was not over. The documents and material objects seized during the search were promptly produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri, wherefrom they were returned to the investigating officer for the purpose of the investigation. As on date of the filing of the counter affidavit, the respondent has submitted that investigation was not over. He has further submitted that if the petitioner desired to obtain the properties, he should have approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri, as contemplated under Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C. In the above said circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the materials available on record. 9. Pleadings disclose that financial irregularities have been alleged against the then President of the Kaveripattinam Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society and some officials of NAFED, TANFED and KPCM. A case in Cr.No.3/AC/2003 has been registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment at Dharmapuri and that search has been made in the residence of the petitioner on 08.02.2003 in the presence of two responsible Government servants. The police has also seized the computer hard disk as they had reason to believe that it might contain incriminating information. Documents have also been seized from the locker of the petitioner in Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., on 10.02.2003 in the presence of respectable witnesses including officials of the above said bank and jewels were also seized. Mahazar has been prepared in respect of seizure at the bank and at the house. The seized materials and documents have been handed over to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri. Thereafter, the same were returned to the investigation officer for the purpose of investigation and on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, the investigation was not over. 10. As rightly contended by the respondent, the properties seized pursuant to the search and produced before the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction could be ordered to be released only by the concerned Civil Court i.e., in the case on hand, it is the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri, as contemplated under Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C. Provisions under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of Cr.P.C., deals with the return of seized properties under various circumstances. If the properties seized are subject matter of crime, then it is for the concerned Criminal Court to consider as to whether the documents and other materials seized during search are required for the purpose of investigation of the crime and that, it is not open to the petitioner to seek for return of documents and materials for the mere asking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Alternative remedy is available in Cr.P.C., for return of the seized materials. Where there is an effective and alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be involved in a case of this nature, during the pendency of an investigation. 11. In such a view of the matter, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.