2006(2) JLJ 229
W.A. Shah. J.
Ashok v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1042 of 2006:
Decided on 28.3.2006.
The Town Inspector. Police Station Biaora. filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Biaora. on the ground that the petitioner deals in gambling and had acquired huge property through the proceeds of the said gambling. therefore. the Town Inspector he allowed or ordered to investigate and collect the evidence about the said acquisition of the property and it was further requested that till the disposal of the application the petitioner be restrained from transferring or alienating his property to anyone. On moving the said application. the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Biaora passed the order impugned allowing the application and granting the relief‘s sought. [Para 2
This petition is on the following ground:
That learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain such application filed under section 105 CrPC as well as to pass such order i.e., 8.2.2006 directing the police to collect the evidence and to restrain the applicant to transfer or alienate property... [Para 4
Held : It appears that the learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned under the provisions of section 10SC, 105D and 105G of the Code. The order impugned does not show that the learned Magistrate ever considered the provisions of section 105 of the Code. The learned Magistrate appears to have lost sight of the fact that the provisions which he applied could not be independently applied and they can only he applied while applying section 105 itself. Section 105 of the Code applies only in cases where there is a reciprocal arrangement with the foreign countries for extension of Code of Criminal Procedure to their territories. These provisions under section 105 as well as the provision applied by the Magistrate only apply to the territories and in which by reciprocal arrangement provisions of the Code are applicable. Under these circumstances, the impugned order which the learned Magistrate passed is clearly without jurisdiction as the provisions to which he has resorted are not available to be applied to the local areas. [Para 6
naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 105] 105x] 105?k rFkk 105[k && /kkjk 105x] 105?k vkSj 105N ds v/khu mica/k Lora= :i ls ykxw ugha fd, tk ldrs && mUgsa dsoy /kkjk 105 ykxw djrs le; ykxw fd;k tk ldrk gS && ;g mica/k mu fons‘kksa ifj{ks=ksa esa ykxw fd, tk ldrs gS tgk¡ O;frdkjh O;oLFkk }kjk lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw fd, x, gSA
uxj fujh{kd] iqfyl Fkkuk C;kojk us U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] C;kojk ds le{k bl vk/kkj ij vkosnu Qkby fd;k fd ;kph |wr dk /ka/kk djrk gS rFkk mDr |wr ds /ka/ks ds vkxe ls mlus fo‘kky laifÙk vftZr dh gS blfy, uxj fujh{kd dks laifÙk ds mDr vtZu ds laca/k esa vUos‘k. djus vksj lk{; ,df=r djus dh vuqKk ;k vkns‘k fn;k tk, rFkk ;g vkSj vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd vkosnu ds fuiVkjs rd ;kph dks viuh laifÙk fdlh dks Hkh varfjr ;k vU;laØkfer djus ls vo#) fd;k tk,A mDr vkosnu fd, tkus ij fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] C;kojk us vkosnu eatwj djrs gq, vkSj bZfIlr vuqrks"k iznku djrs gq, vkf{kIr vkns‘k ikfjr fd;kA ¿ iSjk 2À
;g ;kfpdk fuEufyf[kr vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gS %
fo}ku eftLVªsV dks naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 105 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k og vkosnu xzg.k djus vkSj lkFk gh] iqfyl dks lk{; ,df=r djus rFkk vkosnu dks laifÙk varfjr ;k vU;laØkfer djus ls vo#) djus dk ;g vkns‘k fnukad 8-2-2006 ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA---------- ¿ iSjk 4À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izrhr gksrk gS fd fo}ku eftLVªsV us vkf{kIr vkns‘k lafgrk dh /kkjk 105x] 105?k rFkk 105N ds v/khu ikfjr fd;k gSA vkf{kIr vkns‘k esa nf‘kZr ugha gS fd fo}ku eftLVªsV us lafgrk dh /kkjk 105 ds mica/kksa ij fdafpr~ Hkh fopkj fd;kA izrhr gksrk gS fd fo}ku eftLVªsV dh n`f"V ls ;g rF; vk>y gks x;k fd mUgksaus tks mica/k ykxw fd, gSa og Lora= :i ls ykxw ugha fd, tk ldrs Fks] mUgsa Lo;a /kkjk 105 ykxw djrs le; gh ykxw fd;k tk ldrk gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 105 dsoy mu ekeyksa esa ykxw gksrh gS tgk¡ fons‘kksa ls muds ifj{ks=ksa esa naM lafgrk ds foLrkj ds fy, O;frdkjh O;oLFkk gSA /kkjk 105 ds v/khu bu mica/kksa ds lkFk&gh eftLVªsV }kjk ykxw fd, x, mica/k dsoy mu ifj{ks=ksa esa ykxw gksrs gS tks fons‘kh ifj{ks= gSa rFkk ftuesa O;frdkjh O;oLFkk }kjk lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw gksrs gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] fo}ku eftLVªsV }kjk ikfjr vkf{kIr vkns‘k Li"Vr% vf/kdkfjrkjfgr gS D;kasfd mUgksusa ftu mica/kksa dk vkJ; fy;k gS og LFkkuh; {ks=ksa esa ykxw fd, tkus ds fy, miyC/k ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 6À
1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "("Code" hereinafter) and it arises out of order dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biaora, District Rajgarh, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3/2006.
2. The factual background of the matter is that the Town Inspector, Police Station Biaora, filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biaora, on the ground that the petitioner deals in gambling and had acquired huge property through the proceeds of the said gambling, therefore. the Town Inspector he allowed or ordered to investigate and collect the evidence about the said acquisition of the property and it was further requested that till the disposal of the application the petitioner he restrained from transferring or alienating his property to anyone. On moving the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biaora passed the order impugned allowing the application and granting the relief's sought. The learned Court below also ordered to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and directed that within 30 days, the petitioner should show justification about the acquisition of his property which may he seized as per order relating to attachment and seizure.
3. The further factual background is that after the above order the police searched the house of the petitioner and prepared inventory panchnama. The petitioner made a complaint to the learned Magistrate that the order did not authorize the raiding of the house by the police, whereas under the garb of the impugned order the Police raided the house of the petitioner and made the said panchnama. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate directed the concerned police to produce the panchnama and the proceedings of the raid he fore it. After that, police moved an application for transfer of the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, and subsequently he allowed it in his Court which is now pending as Criminal MJC No. 18/2006.
4. Under these circumstances, this petition is on the following grounds:
(i) That learned Magistrate has on jurisdiction to entertain such application tiled under section 105 CrPC as well as to pass such order i.e., 8.2.2006 directing the police to collect the evidence and to restrain the applicant to transfer or alienate property.
(ii) That learned lower Court has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice to the applicant directing him to give explanation and to produce evidence about acquisition of his properly.
(iii) That relief sought in the application (Annexure A) has been finally allowed granting both reliefs then nothing remains to proceed further in the matter or to issue show cause notice to the applicant or to make further enquiry about acquisition of property of any person/applicant.
(iv) That impugned order dated 9.2.2006 (Annexure A2) which is final in nature. has been passed without notice and hearing the applicant. therefore. such order which has been passed behind the back of the applicant. is illegal and opposed the principles of natural justice.
(v) That impugned order as well as proceedings arc misconceived.
(vi) That at the time of filing of the application under section 105 CrPC for passing the impugned order not a single criminal case was pending against the applicant. The alleged cases are old in which the applicant has been acquitted by the Court below.
(vii) That if there would be illegal acquisition of property. then it will be the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department to make enquiry about and punish the applicant by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
(viii) That the applicant craves leave of Hon'ble Court to urge other grounds at the time of hearing of this petition.
5. Accordingly it is prayed as under:
It is. therefore. prayed that impugned order dated R.2.2006. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Biaora and the proceeding pending in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3/06 and the subseque
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.