SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 483

2006(2) JLJ 233
Rakesh Saksena. J.
Balram Mihani and others v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 10496. 10497 and 10538 of 2005:
Decided on 10.4.2006.

Advocates:
Jagat Sher Singh and Vivek Tankha with H.K. Upadhyaya
for petitioners:
T.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General for State.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 105A to 105L -- provisions -- are applicable in foreign Stales with reciprocal Contracts as well as in India -- view against that taken in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1042/2006 reported in 2006(2) JLJ 229 -- case referred to larger Bench.

       The petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of Judicial‘ Magistrate First Class, Itarsi. for passing the orders dated 7.12.2005 against them under section 105D and his jurisdiction to proceed further under Chapter VIIA of the Code to make an order for attachment or forfeiture of their property in accordance with the provisions of sections 105D to 105J. [Para 2

       Station House Officer of Police Station Itarsi moved applications before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi, for initiating proceedings against the petitioners Shankar Mihani and Jitendra Bhawsar under Chapter VIIA of the Code and to pass appropriate orders for attachment and forfeiture of the property. which could be identified to have been derived from or used in the commission of offences and their criminal activities. According to police petitioners Shankar Mihani and Jitendra Bhawsar were involved in criminal activities since a long time and had accumulated huge properly derived directly or indirectly by their criminal and unlawful activities. Aforesaid properties were held by them either in their own names or in the name of their relatives. which were required to be identified and traced hence the police prayed for a direction under section 105D of the Code authorising them to take all necessary steps for tracing and identifying such property. [Para 3

       Held: On careful perusal of the provision incorporated in Chapter VIIA. it is abundantly clear that the Legislature has enacted the aforesaid provision for identifying and tracing the property derived from or used in commission of an offence. The term "identifying" includes establishment of a proof that the property was derived from or used in commission of an offence. Similarly, the proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property in the aforesaid definitions. There is nothing to indicate that the property should have been derived from or used in commission of an offence in any place or country outside India. There is nothing to indicate that the property with respect to which orders can he passed under this chapter should be located in the contracting State or by the commission of an offence of terrorism. It would be preposterous to hold that only that property can be identified and can be seized or attached under the provisions of Chapter VIIA which is established or proved to have been derived or used in the commission of an offence outside India. In the interpretation of the various provisions enacted in Chapter VIIA, a plain and simple meaning of the definition is significant. [Para 23

       In view of the above discussion I am of the view that sections 105A to 105J of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the local area in India as well as to the foreign territories in which by reciprocal arrangements provisions of the Code are made applicable.

       Since I am in respectful disagreement with the view taken in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1042/06 Ashok P. State of Madhya Pradesh [2006(2) JLJ 229], that the provisions under section 105 as well as the provisions of Chapter VIIA of the Code apply only to the territories which are foreign territories in which by reciprocal arrangements provisions of the Code are applicable, I feel constrained to refer this case to the larger Bench for consideration of question as to ‘"whether the provisions of section 105A to 105L incorporated in Chapter VIIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable only to the territories which are foreign territories and in which by reciprocal agreement provisions of the Code arc made applicable or the provisions arc applicable within the territories of India also 2006(2) JLJ 229 dissented from. [Paras 28 & 29

       (2) Criminal P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2001 -- S. 4 -- General Clauses Act 1897 -- S. 6A -- provisions incorporated by Amending Act -- such Amending Act has nothing further to do has to he repealed after it has served its purpose. AIR 1975 SC 155 followed. [Para 7

       ¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 105d ls 105B && mica/k fons‘kksaa esa] tgk¡ O;frdkjh lafonk gS] rFkk Hkkjr esa Hkh ykxw gkssrs gSa && n`f"Vdks.k 2006¼2½ ts ,y ts 229 esa laizdkf‘kr izdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 1042@2006 esa fy, x, n`f"Vdks.k ds foijhr && ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘krA

       ;kphx.k us /kkjk 105?k ds v/khu muds fo#) vkns‘k fnukad 7-12-2005 ikfjr djus dh U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] bVkjlh dh vf/kdkfjrk ij rFkk /kkjk 105?k esa 105¥ ds mica/kksa ds vulkj mudh laifÙk dqdZ ;k leiàr djus dk vkns‘k djus ds fy, lafgrk ds v/;k; 7d ds v/khu vkxs dk;Zokgh djus dh mudh v/fkdkfjrk ij vk{ksi fd;k gSA ¿ iSjk 2À

       iqfyl Fkkuk bVkjlh ds Fkkuk vf/kdkjh us ;kphx.k ‘kadj fegkuh vkSj thrsanz Hkkolkj ds fo#) lafgrk ds v/;k; 7d ds v/khu dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus rFkk tks laifÙk vijk/k ;k mudh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ska ls izkIr gqbZ gS ;k mlesa mi;ksx esa ykbZ xbZ igpkuh tk lds mldh dqdhZ vkSj leigj.k ds fy, leqfpr mi;skx esa ykbZ xbZ tkus ds fy, U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] bVkjlh ds le{k vkosnu fd,A iqfyl ds vuqlkj] ;kphx.k ‘kadj fegkuh vkSj thrsUnz Hkkolkj yscs le; ls vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa yxs gSa rFkk mUgksaus viuh vkijkf/kd vkSj fof/kfo#) xfrfof/k;ksa ls izR;{kr% ;k vizR;{kr% ;k fo‘kky laifÙk vftZr dh gS] ftldh igpku dh tkuk vkSj irk yxk;k tkuk vko‘;d gS blfy, iqfyl us ;g laifÙk irk yxkus vkSj igpkuus ds fy, leLr vko‘;d dne mBkus ds fy, izkf/kd`r fd, tkus gsrq lafgrk dh /kkjk 105?k ds v/khu funs‘k dh izkFkZuk dhA ¿ iSjk 3À

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % v/;k; 7d esa lekfo"V mica/k dk lko/kkuhiw.kZ ifj‘khyu djus ij i;kZIr :i ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd fof/kku&eaMy us iwoksZDr mica/k vijk/k ls O;qRiUu ;k vijk/k djus ds fy, mi;ksx es ykbZ xbZ laifÙk igpkuus vkSj irk yxkus ds fy, vf/kfu;fer fd;k gSA in **inpku djuk** ds varxZr ;g lcwr LFkkfir djuk gS fd laifÙk fdlh vijk/k ds fd, tkus ls O;qRiUu gqbZ gS ;k mlesa mi;ksx dh xbZ gSA blh izdkj] iwoksZDr ifjHkk"kkvksa esa vijk/k ds vkxe ls vkijkf/kd fØ;kdykiksa ds ¼ftuds varxZr eqnzk varj.kksa dks varoZfyr djus okys vijk/k gSa½ ifj.kkeLo:i fdlh O;fDr }kjk izR;{k ;k vizR;{k Li ls O;qRiUu ;k vfHkizkIr dksbZ laifÙk Hkkjr ls ckgj fdlh LFkku ;k ,slk dqN Hkh ugha gS ftlls bafxr gks fd laifÙk Hkkjr ls ckgj fdlh LFkku ;k ns‘k esa vijk/k fd, tkus ls O;qRiUu ;k mlesa mi;ksx dh xbZ gksuk pkfg,A ,slk dqN Hkh ugha ftlls bafxr gks fd og laifÙk ftlds laca/k esa bl v/;k; ds v/khu vkns‘k ikfjr fd, tk ldrs gS] lafonkdkjh jkT; esa fLFkr gksuk pkfg, ;k vkradokn dk vijk/k fd, tkus ls lac) gksuk pkfg,A ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk vlaxr gksuk fd v/;k; 7d ds mica/kksa ds v/khu dsoy ogh laifÙk irk yxkbZ vkSj vfHkx`ghr ;k dqdZ dh tk ldrh gS ftldk Hkkjr ls ckgj vijk/k fd, tkus ls O;qRiUu gksuk ;k mlesa mi;ksx fd;k tkkuk LFkkfir ;k lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA v/;k; 7d esa vf/kfu;fer fofHkUu mica/kksa ds fuoZpu esa ifjHkk"kk dk lknk vkSj ljy vFkZ egRoiw.kZ gSA ¿ iSjk 23À

       mi;qZDr foospu dh n`f"V ls esjh jk; gS fd naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 105d ds 105¥ mu fons‘kh ifj{ks=ksa ds lkFk&gh ftuesa O;frdkjh O;oLFkk }kjk lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw fd, x, gSa] Hkkjr ds LFkkuh; {ks=kssa dks Hkh ykxw gksrh gSA

       D;ksafd eSa izØh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 1042@06 v‘kksd fo- e/; izns‘k jkT; ¿ 2006¼2½ ts ,y ts 229À esa viuk, x, bl n`f"Vdks.k ls lknj lvger gw¡ fd /kkjk 105 ds v/khu mica/kksa ds lkFk&gh lafgrk ds v/;k; 7d ds mica/k dsoy mu ifj{ks=ksa dks ykxw gksrs gS tks ,sls fons‘kh ifj{ks=kssa gSa ftuesa O;frdkjh O;oLFkk }kjk lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw gksrs gS] blfy, eSa ;g ekey c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks bl iz‘u ij fopkj djus ds fy, funsZf‘kr djus dk ck/; vuqHko djrk gw¡ fd D;k naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/;k; 7d esa lekfo"V /kkjk 105d ls 105B ds mica/k dsoy mUgha ifj{ks=ksa esa ykxw gksrs gSa tks fons‘kh ifj{ks= gSa rFkk ftuesa O;frdkjh djkj }kjk lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw fd, x, gSa] vFkok mica/k Hkkjr ds ifj{ks= esa Hkh ykxw gksrs gS \ 2006 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 229 folEerA

        ¿ iSjk 28 ,oa 29À

       ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2001 && /kkjk 4 && lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 && /kkjk 6d && la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e }kjk mica/k lekfo"V fd, x, && blls vf/kd ;g vf/kfu;e dqN ugha djrk && bldk iz;kstu iw.kZ gks tkus ds i‘pkr~ fujflr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 155 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 27À

ORDER

1. Since all the aforesaid petitions involved the common question of law about the applicability and scope of the provisions of the Chapter VIIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) incorporated in the Code by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act. 1993 (Act No. 40 of 1993), all the aforesaid petitions arc being disposed of by this common order.

2. Through the aforesaid petitions the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Itarsi, for passing the orders dated 7. 12.2005 against them under section 105D and his Jurisdiction to proceed further under Chapter VIIA of the Code to make an order for attachment or forfeiture of their property in accordance with the provisions of sections 105D to 105J. Petitioners of Petition No. 10496/05 and 10497/05 have challenged the impugned order dated 7.12.2005 passed in Crime No. 852/05 registered by Police, Itarsi. and petitioners of Petition No.10538/05 have challenged the impugned order dated 7.12.2005 passed against Jittu alias Jitendra in Crime No. 857/05, whereby the Station, House Officer of Police Station Sohagpur and Station House Officer of Itarsi have been ordered to take all the steps necessary for tracing and identifying their properties.

3. Facts giving rise to these petitions are that Station House Officer, of Police Station Itarsi moved applications before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Itarsi. for initiating proceedings against the petitioners Shankar Mihani and Jitendra Bhawsar under Chapter VIIA of the Code and to pass appropriate orders for attachment and forfeiture of the propel1y, which could he identified to have been derived from or used in the commission of offences and their criminal activities. According to police, petitioners Shankar Mihani and Jitendra Bhawsar were involved in criminal activities since a long time and had accumulated huge property derived directly or indirectly by their criminal and unlawful activities. Aforesaid properties were held by them either in their own names or in the name of their relatives. which were required to he identified and traced. hence. the police prayed for a direction under section 105D of the Code authorising them to take all necessary steps for tracing and identifying such property.

4. In regard to unlawful and criminal activities of Shankar Mihani, it was alleged that he indulged in large scale of unlawful Satta business since 1997 and that he was arrested in around 11 cases registered against him under section 4A of Gambling Act. He was also wanted in Crime No. 852/05 registered for the similar offence. By his criminal activities he was accumulating huge wealth which required to be investigated. Police produced all the criminal record before the Magistrate along-with the statements of persons. who were involved in the aforesaid criminal activities under the supervision and direction of Shankar Mihani. According to police. by Satta business Shankar Mihani was earning around Rs.4.00.000/- daily. The properties derived from such activities were held by and under the names of his brothers Dharam Das. Dayal Das, Mahesh, Vasudco, Kanhaiya and other relatives and huge amount of cash was deposited in the branches of State Bank of India and Punjah National Bank in the name of brothers and family members.

5. Similar allegations were made by the police against the petitioner Jitendra Bhawsar. According to police. criminal history of the family of Jitendra Bhawsar began from the year 1985. Around 54 criminal cases were registered against Rajkumar Bhawsar and Jitendra Bhawsar. Records and crime numbers were produced before the Magistrate. Since the year 1996 Jitendra Bhawsar was indulging in illegal Satta business (Varli Matka), which had connection with Mumbai Salta Bazar. His family members were helping him in managing the income earned by unlawful and criminal activities. Under the directions of Jitendra Bhawsar number of persons were indulgin

































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top