The main legal point established is that seized property, connected to an offense, should be held pending trial to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short) the applicant has challenged the impugned orders dated 29-5-2002 and 21-6-2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class as well as the order dated 21-6-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, rejecting the relief sought by the applicant-petitioner for releasing the cash amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- on execution of supratnama under section 451 of the Code.

4. Brief facts are as under:---

The applicant is carrying on the business of Sonam Spare Parts near Bus Stand Ballarshah and his wife is working as Travelling Agent. The police had conducted raid at the premises of the applicant-accused on 16-5-2002, the respondent P.S.O. had conducted raid in the old premises purchased by the appellant and it is alleged that five persons were found to be playing Worli Matka and that some documents and articles were seized from the said place. The cash amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- has been seized from the Almirah of the appellant and the offence bearing Crime No. 3039/02 for the offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, was registered against the applicant and other co-accused. On completion of investigation the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura.

5. The applicant had filed application for releasing cash amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- on Supratnama on 20-5-2002 and the said application came to be rejected on 29-5-2002. The applicant again filed second application on 17-6-2002 for releasing the cash amount on Supratnama and the said application came to be rejected on 21-6-2002. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the applicant had preferred Criminal Revision No. 110/02 before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and said revision was also rejected on 12-7-2002 and this order is under challenge in this application filed under section 482 of the Code.

6. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the said amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- has no concern with the gambling and hence the same ought to have been released in favour of the applicant on execution of Supratnama. He contended that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in law. The learned Counsel further contended that both the applicants and his wife are businessmen and Income Tax Payee and as such it is not uncommon to find cash amount at their residential place. He contended that the cash amount recovered from the applicant may kindly be returned to him under section 451 of the Code. He contended that the cash amount would not be required for identification and the applicant is ready to produce the cash amount as and when directed by the Court. He contended that both the Courts below committed an error in law in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for releasing the cash amount and committed an error in holding that the cash amount seized in the crime may be required to be forfeited and the order impugned is not sustainable in law.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor do not dispute that the amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- has been seized from the house of the applicant as per the seizure panchanama dated 16-5-2002 drawn by the police personnel. It is contended that the said amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- has been seized along with Satta Patti and as such it cannot be returned on execution of Supratnama either under section 451 or 457 of the Code. He contended that applicant had filed notebook containing entries about income and expenditure of his business and if the entry dated 16-5-2002 on which date raid was effected is perused, it would reveal that total balance of Rs. 1,10,196/- is shown whereas the amount of Rs. 1,31,571/- is alleged to have been foun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document