1. State is aggrieved by Order dated 10.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (Forest Cases), Jammu, whereby a shop/ office situated at Second Floor at K.C. Plaza, Jammu allegedly purchased by Surain Singh Langeh, has been ordered to be released on the Supurdnama of the applicant, who in terms of the order has been directed to furnish an undertaking that he shall not dispose of the property by any mode of transfer to any person, firm, corporation or company.

2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir questions the order impugned in the revision petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction and tantamounts to interfering with the investigation, which was being monitored by Hon™ble High Court in OWP No. 496/2003.

3. Sh. B.S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing in support of the revision petition submits that F.I.R No.9/2001, under Sections 420, 406,120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code, stands registered by Crime Branch, Jammu against M/s Endowment Investment India Limited. The Finance Company has looted thousands of depositors of their hard earned money and the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and, as such, is not entitled to the release of the property in his favour.

4. Sh. K.S. Pathania, learned counsel for Surain Singh Langeh, on the other hand, submits that the seizure of immoveable property by Police was itself illegal. Police has authority and power to seize only movable property and that immoveable property cannot be seized during the investigation of any case.

5. Sh. K.S. Pathania further submits that he is a bona-fide purchaser of the property and no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate, who has directed release of property on Supurdnama and has not passed any final order of release of property in his favour.

Sh. Pathania refers to Mrinal Kant Malik and Ors v. State of U.P and anr., reported as 1 (1999) CCR163.

6. Sh. B.S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General, urged in rebuttal that the expression property occurring in Section 51 and Chapter XLIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, would not necessarily mean moveable property. According to the learned counsel immoveable property is not excluded from the operation of the aforementioned Chapter and Section 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989. Learned Counsel refers to State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, reported as (1999) 7 SCC 685.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, as also relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Application filed by Surain Singh Langeh for the release of shop/office situated at Second Floor at K.C. Plaza, Jammu, was resisted by the Investigating Officer, Central Investigation Team, Headquarter Crimes and Railways J&K, Jammu, on the premise that certain documents were seized from the property situated at K.C. Plaza, Jammu and after seizing documents the premises was sealed in F.I.R No. 9/2001 under Sections420, 406,120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code.

9. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate sealing or taking possession of immoveable properly except by the orders of a Magistrate. The scheme of the Code vests powers of search of immoveable property in the Police officers, but that too in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

10. No specific provision of law has been brought to the notice of the Court, under which, power may be conceded to a Police officer to seal or take possession of the immoveable property. The scheme of the Code does not permit any Police officer to deal with IMMOVEABLE Properties and such power has been vested only in the Magistrates, who may consider attachment or otherwise of immoveable properties, in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

11. Chapter XLIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages various situations where a Magistrate/Criminal Court/s may deal with the release of property seized by Police, during the invest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document