IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.D. Tated, J.
Mahindra Saigal.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 310 of 1985, decided on 23-4-1986.
Advocates appeared :
M. Janardhan and K.M. Makhija, for petitioner.
V.S. Jadhav, P.P., for State.
Pratap P. Chirayath, for respondent No. 2.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 457 - SEIZURE OF PROPERTY - RETURN OF PROPERTY - PROPERTY INVOLVED IN OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner obtained a loan from the complainant and executed a power of attorney, promissory notes, and an affidavit. Complainant alleged that the petitioner promised to sell him a flat and two garages for Rs. 3,67,000/- and paid the full amount. Later, the complainant found that the petitioner was not the full owner of the flat and that it was auctioned for recovery of income-tax dues. The petitioner was charged with cheating and fraudulently obtaining money from the complainant. During the investigation, the police seized moveable and immoveable property from the petitioner, including a flat and a shop.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below found that the property in question was involved in the offence for which the charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner's application for the return of the property was rejected.
Issues: Whether the property seized by the police was involved in the offence and whether the petitioner was entitled to its return.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property seized by the police was prima facie involved in the offence alleged against the petitioner. The courts below were right in rejecting the petitioner's application for returning the property to him.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged subject to the observations and action to be taken by the Police Commissioner and the Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property seized by the Police was not obtained by him from the amount that he got from the complainant. According to him, there were many transactions between him and the complainant and during the transactions he executed certain promissory notes and other documents in favour of the complainant and agreed to repay the amount after two years as has been mentioned in the pronotes. The petitioner submitted an application to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay for return of his properties. The said application was opposed by the complainant. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found that the flat and the shop was the property involved in the offence. In case the prosecution case was correct. According to him, the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the said property. Hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. The Revision preferred against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase the residential flat No. 11 before he obtained money from the complainant. According to the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, the agreement in question is dated 20th April, 1984 though in the body of the agreement some payments were shown to have been made earlier. As regards the Shop No. 112, Jeevan Bima Nagar Shopping Centre, S.V. Road, Borivli, Bombay, it was admittedly purchased after 3rd February, 1984 i.e. after the accused obtained
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.