Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
K. Sri Lakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
Sivaji Manager, M/s. Whiteclifs Hair Studio Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Crl. M.P. No. 7129 of 2017 and Crl. R.C. No. SR-23434 of 2017
Decided On : 10-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunder Mohan.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Narmadha Sampath and Mr. C. Iyyapparaj.
Procedural requirements under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. must be followed when granting interim custody of seized goods, and parties have the right to approach the court with a suitable petition to assert ownership of the seized property.
Headnote:
Interim Custody - Property Seizure - Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - [Section 451 of Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the disposal of property pending trial. The court emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements and providing notice to all relevant parties before passing orders related to interim custody of seized goods. The judgment highlighted the right of the petitioner to approach the lower court with a suitable petition to assert ownership of the seized property and the obligation of the magistrate to consider such a petition in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's properties were seized by the police from her shop premises on the pretext that they were stolen by her husband. The first respondent filed a petition seeking interim custody of the seized goods under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The magistrate granted interim custody to the first respondent, prompting the petitioner to file a criminal revision case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order granting interim custody to the first respondent was not in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. It emphasized the petitioner's right to approach the lower court with a suitable petition to assert ownership of the seized property and the obligation of the magistrate to consider such a petition in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the seized property, the procedural requirements under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., and the right of the petitioner to challenge the order granting interim custody to the first respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure to provide notice to the accused person and the petitioner before granting interim custody to the first respondent, as required by the procedural requirements of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasized the petitioner's right to approach the lower court with a suitable petition to assert ownership of the seized property.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the court directing the petitioner to approach the lower court with a suitable petition to assert ownership of the seized property, and emphasizing the obligation of the magistrate to consider such a petition in accordance with the law.
1. This petition has been filed to accept the cause title of the above referred revision case.
2. According to the petitioner some properties/materials belonging to her had been seized by the respondent police, from the shop premises run by the petitioner, on the pretext that they were stolen by the accused, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner. The said seized properties were produced before the Court below. The first respondent, who is the authorized representative of the defacto complainant, had filed a petition before the Court below under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of those goods seized from the premises of the petitioner.
3. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the first respondent therein as well as the respondent police in the said case, has passed an order on 12.05.2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 1254 of 2017 in F.I.R. No. 806 of 2017. By the said order, the learned Magistrate directed the goods to be given to the first respondent for interim custody on condition that the first respondent shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and also on condition that the first respondent shall not tamper or alter the goods and he shall produce the same as and when required by the Court and also on condition that those goods should be photographed.
4. Pursuant to the said order, the said goods, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- had been given interim custody to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has moved the above referred criminal revision case. As the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the Court below, she has filed this petition along with the revision to accept the cause title.
5. Heard Mr. Sunder Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. It is argued by Mr. Sundar Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that properties in question, which had been given for interim custody to the first respondent, are actually belonging to the petitioner, as the petitioner had purchased the same against the bills, which, the petitioner is ready to produce the same, before any forum and that being so, it is the case of the petitioner that since the goods seized from the premises of the petitioner are belonging to the petitioner, the same should not have been entrusted to the first respondent by way of interim custody.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that in the petition filed by the first respondent under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the goods, at least the accused, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner, should have been heard. The learned counsel would further state that in this case, before passing the order impugned in this revision case, no notice was served on the accused person and only after hearing the first respondent as well as the prosecution-State, the said order was passed. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the order impugned is infirm and the same is assailable.
8. Per contra, Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent's employer is running a Hair studio, where the accused person, i.e. the husband of the petitioner, had been working as employee and after some time, he left the job and only after some time, the first respondent's employer came to know that some goods were stolen by the accused, based on which, a complaint had been lodged on behalf of the first respondent's employer. Based on the said complaint, the police started investigation and accordingly the police had found that the stolen goods were stored in the shop running by the petitioner from where it was seized. Only on that strength, the learned counse
