IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Md. Kapil Uddin, S/o. Md. Rohim Uddin - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 130 Of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451, 457 - Property - Custody of seized articles - Petitioner has filed an application against order passed whereby petition filed by petitioner seeking custody of seized articles has been rejected merely on ground of objection raised by Investigating Officer – During investigation, neither learned Trial Court made any exercise to obtain specific report in this regard at time of passing of order. Para 16.
Finding of the Court: Investigating Officer has raised objections in giving zimma of seized articles to petitioner, but Investigating Officer did not submit any such specific report about necessity of such articles during investigation, neither learned Trial Court made any exercise to obtain specific report in this regard at time of passing of order - Matter regarding zimma can be dealt with at time of enquiry or trial as per provision of Section 451 and Section 457 Cr.P.C. and it is incumbent on part of Court to pass an effective order, having regard to interest of investigation, nature of offence and entitlement of person concerned - So far as regards disposal of seized articles, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has observed that matter of custody and disposal of seized property pending trial can be dealt with under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned SDJM (M) Charaideo, Sonari in Zimma Petition No. 751/2022, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of the seized articles vide M.R. No. 109/2022 and M.R. No. 112/2022 has been rejected merely on the ground of objection raised by the Investigating Officer.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a businessman and running a Tea stall in the name and style of Spice Oven Tea Shop located at Thahekhu Village, Dimapur, Nagaland with valid trade license issued by Thahekhu Village Council, Dimapur, Nagaland.
3. The petitioner has also been working as business correspondent banking agent of a company namely DhanHind Utility Pvt. Ltd. which is a corporate Business Correspondent, Working with bank in the business of associated ATM, Domestic Money Transfer, Digital Payments, Banking Operation and other financial activities in accordance with guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
4. The petitioner has also been appointed as Business Correspondent/Agent of Yes Bank Ltd. through Mobisafar Services Pvt. Ltd.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that being rightful owner of the seized articles, he filed a petition under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned SDJM(M), Sonari seeking custody of the seized articles on the ground that since the day of seizure 7(seven) months have already been elapsed and the seized articles are lying in the custody of the police and apart from that trial of the case is yet to start. The petitioner being involved in money transaction business and the seizures be kept under custody of police for indefinite periods, there is every possibility of damage and decay of the said valuable documents and the petitioner is facing immense difficulties in money transaction business.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case in hand falls within the ambit of Section 451 Cr.P.C. as the property in question has been seized by the police and the same has been produced before the Court and the trial is yet to start. Therefore, if the zimma of the seized articles is given to the petitioner putting any such condition as the Court may deem fit and proper, it would be proper and fair administration of justice.
7. By referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no useful purpose would be served to keep valuable articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the petitioner being rightful owner is entitled to custody of the seized articles.
9. It is reported by the Investigating Officer that as the Charaideo district is highly sensitive as per extremists point of view, there is every possibility of again committed such type of crime by the accused petitioner for banned outfit organization who are causing waging war against the Government of India as well as creating terror amongst the peace loving people since long.
10. It is also reported that though the accused petitioner is resident of Choudhury Bazar under Murajhar Police Station district Hojai, but he used to reside at Thahekhu Village, Dimapur, Nagaland. It is further submitted that the case is still pending for arrest of the other co-accused. So at this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the prayer of the petitioner.
11. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary. It appears that as per seizure list on 07.07.2022, 1(one) Samsung Mo
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638
Matter of custody and disposal of seized property pending trial can be dealt with under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
The expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for custody and disposal of seized property pending trial.
The court emphasized the need for expedited interim custody of property under S.451, ensuring rightful claimants are heard and property is not unduly retained by authorities.
The court affirmed that seized property should be released promptly under Section 451 CrPC to prevent unnecessary custody and deterioration.
The entitlement to seized property post-acquittal is contingent upon proven ownership title, overriding mere possession claims.
Point of Law : Court should pass appropriate orders immediately and articles should not be kept for a long time at police station, and procedure for disposal of seized valuable articles, currency not....
The court reaffirmed the principle that further investigation remains permissible post charge-sheet, emphasizing the discretion of courts regarding interim custody of seized property to prevent undue....
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.