Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2744
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
Mohd. Akhtar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. And Another - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4276 of 2015
Decided On : 27-08-2015
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Pandey.
For the Respondent:Govt.Advocate.
The preservation of material evidence is crucial in criminal cases, and the refusal to release seized property was justified to ensure the integrity of the trial.
Headnote:
Supervisory Jurisdiction - Release of Seized Property - Evidence Preservation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application for release of mobile phone and laptop seized in connection with a crime case under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the lower courts, stating that the mobile phone and laptop were case properties and their release would result in the destruction of crucial evidence, prejudicially affecting the trial.
Issues: Release of seized property, preservation of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no illegality in the refusal to release the mobile phone and laptop, emphasizing the importance of preserving material evidence for the trial.
Final Decision: The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in challenging the order dated 25/3/2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi whereby, the application of the petitioner for release of mobile phone and laptop, seized in connection with crime case no. 483 of 2014 under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC, police station Sigra, Varanasi, has been rejected as well as the order dated 5/5/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4 Varanasi dismissing the revision and thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
2. The revisional court has held the mobile phone and laptop are case properties. It has been noted that the aforesaid properties were seized in relation to commission of offence by the petitioner under sections 419, 420, 406 IPC. The first information report was lodged on an information given by Km. Iti Mishra and others according to which, the petitioner used his mobile phone in calling the complainants to appear in Muslim Inter College, Lallapura, Varanasi in connection with their employment as Anganvari Karyakarti. The petitioner asked them to deposit Rs.1000/- each, but no receipt was issued. It later transpired that the petitioner is an imposter and had collected money from large number of persons, by giving a false assurance regarding their employment. It has been noted that the entire evidence in relation to the calls made to the victim as well as their ID proof and other details are available on the mobile phone and the laptop. The revisional court has thus, held that in case the mobile phone and laptop are given in the custody of the petitioner, it will result in destruction of material piece of evidence and thus, would prejudicially affect the trial.
3. This Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the courts below in refusing to release the mobile phone and laptop to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
