Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
Anvar @ Anvar Sadath - Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police, Madhukkarai Police Station, Coimbatore - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.66 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.Karthikeyan for M/s. V.Balamurugane
For the Respondent:Mr. R.Suriyaprakasam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Prompt and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is essential for the disposal of seized articles and currency notes. The court emphasized the need for expeditious action and outlined the procedure for handling valuable articles and demonetized currency notes, as established in AIR 2003 SC 638.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Case - Interim Custody - Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - [395 IPC, Section 451 Cr.P.C., AIR 2003 SC 638] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the interpretation provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 638. The court highlighted the need for prompt and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451, emphasizing the importance of expeditious disposal of seized articles and currency notes. The court also referred to the decision in AIR 2003 SC 638, which outlined the procedure for disposal of valuable articles and currency notes, emphasizing the need for prompt action and the possibility of exchanging demonetized currency notes in nationalized banks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interim custody of seized money amounting to Rs.76,81,500/- under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed that the money sent by his friend belonged to him and that the seized money should be returned to him to avoid irreparable loss and damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seized money prima facie belonged to the petitioner, as no other claimant had come forward. The court also emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and referred to the procedure outlined in AIR 2003 SC 638 for disposal of seized articles and currency notes.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership of the seized money and the petitioner's right to interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The court also addressed the issue of exchanging demonetized currency notes in nationalized banks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being a claimant to the seized money, was entitled to interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the provisions of Section 451. The court also ruled that the petitioner could exchange the demonetized currency notes in a nationalized bank.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and granted interim custody of the seized currency notes to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.9877 of 2016, dated 20.10.2016, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for interim custody of Rs.76,81,500/-.
2. The petitioner herein has filed a petition invoking the provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the seized amount of Rs.76,81,500/- on the ground that a complaint has been lodged by the driver of the petitioner viz., Anand, who does not know the fact that cash was kept in the car. In fact, the amount was sent by the petitioner's friend from Chennai through the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-06 L 9898. Now the amount was seized by the police and kept in judicial custody. Since the seized money belongs to the petitioner, he had filed the petition seeking interim custody of the seized amount. If the amount was not returned to the petitioner, he would be put to irreparable loss and damage.
3. The petition filed by the petitioner was opposed by the State contending that the prime accused viz., Kodali Sridhar and Arun, are absconding and the investigation has not yet been completed.
4. Finding that the petitioner has not filed any proof to show that the seized money to the tune of Rs.76,81,500/- which was stated to be sent by his friend belongs to him, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the Criminal Revision Case.
5. Resisting the Criminal Revision Case, the respondent filed counter stating that on 22.9.2016, in various places at different times, the respondent arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized Rs.2 lakh and Rs.1 lakh respectively from them. The respondent had also arrested accused No.3 on 22.9.2016 and seized a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from him. It is stated in the counter that on 23.9.2016 in various places at different times, he arrested accused Nos.4 to 6 and recorded their confession statements. He seized Rs.31 lakhs from accused No.4; Rs.25 lakhs from accused No.5 and Rs.10,81,500/- from accused No.6 in the presence of witnesses and as on the date of filing of the counter, he seized Rs.76,81,500/- with regard to Crime No.583 of 2016 and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition for return of property without a proper perusal of the circumstances of the case. He would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to note that the seized property represents the amount which had been sent by the petitioner's friend. According to the counsel, the learned Judicial Magistrate had failed to note that the petitioner was a business man and therefore, would be involved in dealing with cash which is properly accounted for. The learned counsel then argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition without considering the consequences of loss to the petitioner and prayed for setting aside the same.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that since the petitioner has failed to show any material that the seized money belongs to the petitioner and hence the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition. He would submit that the investigation is in part and therefore, there is no necessity to hand over interim custody of the seized money to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The case in Crime No.583 of 2016 on the file of Madukkarai Police Station was registered under Section 395 IPC based on the complaint lodged by one Anand. In his complaint, the complainant Anand stated that on 25.8.2016 at
