The Court emphasizes the expedited return of property seized in criminal matters under S.451 of CrPC to prevent misuse and damage.

1. Heard.

2. This petition under S.482 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 2-12-2004 passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur in Criminal Rev. No. 348/2004 whereby the revision filed against the order dated 4-11-2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur has been rejected.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the person who is carrying on the business of Television Network. Annexure A2 is the registration certificate issued by the District Excise Officer. It is submitted that he is the authorized Cable Operator by Z TV to telecast its Channels. It is stated that he is doing the business lawfully. It is further submitted that there is another competitor namely Vande Matram, who does not want the applicant to carry on the business. It is submitted that at his behest, the police have acted and registered the offence under S.16 of Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1955 and S.63 and S.68A of the Copyright Act . On 1-11-2004, the Sub Inspector searched the place from where the applicant was carrying business and seized the Decoder and 57 other articles, the cost of which is about Rs. 2 lacs. The offence was registered. Allegation against the applicant was that he was telecasting Star TV for which he was not authorized. It is submitted that the applicant preferred an application under S.457 of CrPC for giving the articles on Supurdnama on 2-11-2004, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4-11-2004, Against the order dated 4-11-2004, the applicant preferred a revision but the learned Revisional Court also rejected the revision by order dated 2-12-2004.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant took objection before the Court below contending that the proceedings can be initiated only by the prescribed authority but the investigating officer is not the prescribed authority. It is submitted that till today challan has not been filed. It is submitted that before the learned Magistrate, objection by the State was raised that the applicant is not the owner of the property and it is in the name of one Prem Narayan Tiwari. Shri Paranjpe submitted that an affidavit was also filed before the learned Revisional Court to the effect that the applicant is owner of the property but the Revisional Court declined to consider the affidavit on the ground that it was not filed before the trial Court. Counsel submitted that the property seized is delicate and it is lying in the police station and it may be damaged.

5. Opportunity was given to Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. He submitted that challan has not been filed. However he raised objection for handing over the articles No. 8, 9 and 15.

6. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 AIR SCW 5301. In that case, it was held that powers under S.451, CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judicially. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and quoted below : -
"7. In our view the powers under S.451, CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely : -
(1) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remained unused or by its misappropriation;
(2) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
(3) If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
(4) This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence shoul