Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2562
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
K. Rajagopal
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
W.P.No.13478 of 2004 & WP.MP. No. 15794 of 2004
Decided on: 21-06-2012
For the Petitioner:V. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.V. Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the properties seized are the subject matter of a crime, it is for the concerned Criminal Court to consider whether the documents and other materials seized during the search are required for the purpose of the investigation of the crime, and that alternative remedy is available in the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the seized materials.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Seized Materials - Cr.P.C. - Sections 451, 452, 457 - The court discussed the provisions under Sections 451, 452, and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deal with the return of seized properties under various circumstances. The court emphasized that if the properties seized are the subject matter of a crime, then it is for the concerned Criminal Court to consider whether the documents and other materials seized during the search are required for the purpose of the investigation of the crime. The court held that it is not open to the petitioner to seek the return of documents and materials for the mere asking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that alternative remedy is available in the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the seized materials.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, sought a mandamus to retrieve his locker key, computer CPU, and other seized materials following a search conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted as the properties seized pursuant to the search and produced before the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction could be ordered to be released only by the concerned Civil Court, as contemplated under Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: The issues involved the return of seized properties and whether the petitioner could seek the return of documents and materials under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the properties seized are the subject matter of a crime, it is for the concerned Criminal Court to consider whether the documents and other materials seized during the search are required for the purpose of the investigation of the crime. The court emphasized that alternative remedy is available in the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the seized materials.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
1. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, the respondent herein to hand over his Locker Key of Locker No.A-50, of Tamilnadu State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Chennai – 1, Computer CPU and other seized materials.
2. The petitioner has submitted that he was working as a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies / General Manager of Integrated Co-operative Development Project, Thiruvarur and retired from service on 31.03.2004. Earlier he was working in the Cooperative department. His house was raided on 08.02.2003 in connection with a case in Cr.No.3/AC/2003 by the Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Chennai. In search notice, it was stated that the then President of the Kaveripattinam Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society and officials of the said society were believed to have committed irregularities and caused financial loss to the Government. The petitioner was also served with a Mahazar statement of the inventories made relating to the moveables in the house and the jewels taken.
3. Later on, the petitioner's locker in Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai was also searched on 10.02.2003 and according to the petitioner, no incriminating materials or documents were found. It is his further contention that the Inspector of police, has told him that the locker key and other materials would be returned as they were not connected with the case.
4. In addition to the above, the petitioner has submitted that his son's bethrothal was held on 03.03.2004 and the marriage was arranged on 06.06.2004 and contending inter alia that the jewels were required for the marriage, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition for a mandamus stated supra.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, in his counter affidavit has submitted that during the year 2000, the Coconut Growers / Farmers faced unbearable hardship due to unusual fall in the price of Copra and therefore, the Government of India implemented 'Price Support Scheme' to alleviate the financial hardship faced by the coconut growers by way of procuring copra from the real coconut growers at the rate of Rs.32.50p per Kg., while the market price of the copra was about Rs.24/- per Kg. While implementing the scheme certain officials of NAFED, TANFED and KAPCM, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy have entered into with some private coconut traders and others, created false records as if 4,981.900 tonnes of Copra was procured for Rs.16,19,11,750/-at the rate of Rs.32.30 per Kg., from the coconut growers without actually making such procurement and caused loss of about Rs.3,28,48,000/- to the Government and corresponding pecuniary advantage for themselves. After making a confidential enquiry on the basis of credible information received in this regard a case in Cr.No.3/AC/2003 was registered in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment at Dharmapuri. Many accused moved this Court and stayed the proceedings. The preliminary investigation carried out during the initial stage revealed that certain accused involved in case had some dealings with this petitioner Tr. K.Rajagopal who was formerly P.A.to the then Minister for Food and Co-operation. Hence, it became necessary to conduct search to secure the incriminating materials from the possession of this petitioner.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, has further submitted that a search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner on 08.02.2003 in the presence of two responsible Government servants and that inventory was also taken and as it was bonafidely believed that the computer hard disk found in the house of the petitioner might contain incriminating information, the same was seized. Besides certain documents and key of the Locker of Tamilnadu State Apex Cooperative Bank, were also found du
