Procedure followed by lower court in ordering return of documents not proper.

Crl. R.C. No. 318/98 and Crl. R.C. No. 334/98 are being disposed of by this common order, as the issues and the parties in both the matters are the same.

2. By the order dated 10-2-98, the learned Principal Special Judge, for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai allowed Crl. M.P. Nos. 206 and 207 of 1997 and directed the C.B.I., the petitioner herein to return the documents seized which are mentioned as Item Nos. 45, 46, 47, 53, 77, 79 to 82 and 84 in the search list prepared at the time of seizure imposing some conditions. This order is sought to be challenged before this Court in both these Revisions by the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai.

3. The brief facts are as follows :-

(a) On 3-9-97 one Radhakrishnan, the husband of the respondent Renukadevi, while working as U.D.C. at the office of the Director, Board of Apprentice Training, Taramani, Chennai, accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- from one Manimaran, a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering, as a motive or reward for the recruitment of Apprentice in the State Transport Corporation and the C.B.I. police arrested him and a case was registered in R.C. No. 52(A)/97 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(b) When his house was searched, he was found in possession of Rs. 12,18,739/- which the accused had illegally acquired disproportionate to the known sources of his income. With reference to this, a separate case was registered in R. C. No. 36(A)/97 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(c) While searching the premises of the accused, various documents were seized under search list. During the course of investigation, the respondent on Renukadevi, wife of the accused filed a petition on 21-11-97 in Crl. M.P. No. 206/97 before the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. cases. Chennai under Section 457, Cr.P.C. requesting for the return of the documents, namely, item Nos. 45, 46, 47, 53, 77 and 84 as described in the search list.

(d) She had also filed another application in Crl. M.P. No. 207/97 on 2-12-97 requesting for the return of the documents, namely, item Nos. 79 to 82 as described in the search list prepared at her residence by the C.B.I. Police.

(e) The prayer made in the said petitions filed by the wife of the accused was vehemently opposed by the C.B.I. police that those documents seized during the course of investigation are very much essential for continuing the investigation, since those documents are the materials which would relate to the properties acquired by the accused illegally and which are the subject-matter of investigation in R. C. No. 63(A)/97 registered for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the possession of the properties disproportionate to the known sources of his income.

(f) Despite this objection, the learned Principal Special Judge allowed both the petitions and directed for return of those documents after taking Xerox copies of those documents and to proceed with the investigation with those Xerox copies and observed that those true xerox copies could be marked as exhibits during trial. Hence, these Revisions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I./the petitioner herein, while attacking the impugned common order, would contend that these documents being original are the materials for the purpose of investigation and when these documents reflect the illegal acquisition of money by the husband of the respondent, the same are very much essential to continue the investigation, especially when these documents are relevant materials to prove that the properties were acquired by the accused in the name of his wife, which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income, the order of the Special Judge returning these documents by allowing the petitions filed by the respondent, the wife of the accused to use those documents, not only improper, but also would amount to preventing the Investigating Agency to conduct