Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1384 (MP)

Ratna Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-10-29

S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.07.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 124/2013 (State Vs. Jameel Khan and others) pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha under Section 396, 397 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act Applicant/petitioner Smt. Ratna Bai said to be inheritor of deceased Nargis Kinnar. The 'Kinnar' society according to the rituals and customs have declared the applicant as the inheritor/legal heir of deceased Nargis Kinnar. The applicant has filed an application under Sections 457 and 452 of Cr.P.C. for 'supurdaginama' of ornaments seized from the accused persons in this case. The accused persons as well as the prosecution have not chosen to file any reply of this application before the Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that despite the fact that prosecution and the accused persons, from whom the ornaments have been seized, did not claim the property but the property is a matter of evidence. Therefore, 'supurdaginama' application, at this stage, is liable to be rejected. 4. On perusal of the record, it is found that on 30.11.2012, a Crime No. 687/2012 Kotwali Vidisha seized different ornaments from accused Rajendra S/o Lal Singh and on the same date certain ornaments have been seized from the custody of accused Jameel Khan. These ornaments in seizure memo from items No. 1 to 11 and 1 to 10 have been claimed by the applicant. 5. In the case of Sunderbhai Amabala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that:- “With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the tirla is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under S. 451, CrPC, at the earliest. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, the seized articles be handover to the complainant after:- 1. Preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; 2. In such cases, magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under S. 451, CrPC, at the earliest. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, the seized articles be handover to the complainant after:- 1. Preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; 2. taking photographs of such articles and a Bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial, and 3. after taking proper security.” 6. As per seizure memo items No. 1 to 10 seized from accused Rajendra S/o Lal Singh and items No. 1 to 9 seized from accused Jameel Khan be given to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not in any manner change or dispose of the property. (ii) That, the petitioner shall produce the ornaments as and when directed by the Court. (iii) If the petitioner failed to produce the same, the Trial Court would be at liberty to act in according to the law. With the above directions, this revision is disposed of.