Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1122 (ALL)

MOHD. AJMAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-27

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Sharan Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Tarkeshwar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the accused person-revisionist Mohd. Ajmal against the impugned order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Case Crime No. 1318 of 1999, under Sections 489A, 489B, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist are enumerated as follows:- (1) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh did not apply his judicial mind and passed the impugned order dated 20.1.2000 in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. (2) The revisionist had preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the very initial stage. (3) The revisionist is the only claimant for the allegedly recovered currency notes. (4) Even during trial the case property can be released. 4. Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of revision reveals that on 19.11.1999 at 19.30 hours, Sri A.P. Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh alongwith other police personnel was patrolling in the area of outpost Balrampur. On certain information, the police party raided the house of the accused persons Daya Ram and four others situated at place Balrampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh and apprehended Daya Ram and his brother Subas, Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Vakil Yadav, Ajmal and Smt. Neelam Devi wife of Daya Ram. Daya Ram and his cousin brother Subas managed to escape from the place of occurrence alongwith some currency notes. At the scene of occurrence, a block of currency notes of Rs. 100/- on the blank paper without number, which were five in quantity, forged currency notes of Rs.10/- which were 31 in number and 13 currency notes affixed in a cardboard, total calculated of Rs.1440/- and 38 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination, 83 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and 71 currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination, total fake currency notes of Rs.30,850/- denomination only were recovered. A Jeep bearing registration No. MP-19C-0489 was standing in front of the house of the accused person Daya Ram which belonged to accused person Ajmal. A recovery memo was prepared for all the recovered forged currency notes alongwith blocks. 100/- denomination and 71 currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination, total fake currency notes of Rs.30,850/- denomination only were recovered. A Jeep bearing registration No. MP-19C-0489 was standing in front of the house of the accused person Daya Ram which belonged to accused person Ajmal. A recovery memo was prepared for all the recovered forged currency notes alongwith blocks. The abovementioned Jeep which belonged to the accused person Ajmal was also taken into possession by the police and a case under Sections 489A, 489B, 467, 468 I.P.C. was registered at 19.30 hours on the same date i.e. on 19.11.1999. 5. Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision reveals that the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal on 24.11.1999 had preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against one Ashutosh Kumar Rai and three other accused persons as opposite parties; pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. 6. In the aforementioned application, the revisionist has stated that he was a cloth merchant and owned a shop in the name of Mohd. Hammad & Sons in the local market of Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh. On 19.11.1999 at about 7.00 A.M. in the morning, he alongwith his employees Anil Kumar Jaiswal and Vakil Yadav was going to purchase the clothes to Azamgarh by Jeep bearing No. MP-19C-0489. When the revisionist reached near a Pond in the village Lachhirampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, four miscreants stopped the Jeep of the revisionist by brandishing a country made pistol. The revisionist himself was driving the Jeep. The miscreants tried to rob the money and ultimately the accused Ashutosh Kumar Rai became successful in snatching the bag containing the currency notes but was apprehended and caught hold of by the employees of the revisionist and Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from him. The revisionist alongwith accused person Ashutosh Kumar Rai came to the Police Station Kotwali at 12 O'clock in the noon but his report could not be lodged. Resultantly, he preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. 7. On the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal moved an application before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to release the currency notes of Rs.30,000/- denomination. 8. Resultantly, he preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. 7. On the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal moved an application before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to release the currency notes of Rs.30,000/- denomination. 8. This fact is of paramount importance that no case was registered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. preferred by the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal hence no orders could have been passed upon the application of the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal. CHAPTER XXXIV DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY Section 451 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below:- "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. COMMENTS (i) Powers under section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely-(1) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (2) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; (3) If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and (4) This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 ." 9. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and (4) This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 ." 9. However, if it is considered that the application of the revisionist Mohd. Ajmal was moved under Chapter XXXIV of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even then the forged or counterfeit currency notes alongwith blocks were required at the stage of investigation as is evident from the affidavit of Mr. Lambodar Prasad Gautam dated 20.4.2000 posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. 10. Moreover, unlike the appellate jurisdiction criminal revisional jurisdiction have a limited scope. 11. The impugned order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh suffers from no illegality, impropriety or perversity. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.