Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27651
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J
Vimal Patel – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 56004/2023
Abhishek Singh,Advocate General
The applicant must prove ownership of seized property for its release; failure to provide evidence results in dismissal of the application.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Application for release of property - Applicant's request for interim custody of mobile, cash, and gold earring rejected due to lack of ownership proof and absence of seizure memo - Applicant failed to establish ownership of the mobile and the gold earring was not shown to have been seized. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Burden of proof - It is incumbent upon the applicant to establish ownership of the property sought to be released; failure to do so results in rejection of the application. (Paras 5, 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the rejection of his application for the release of a mobile phone, cash, and gold earring seized by police, claiming ownership but lacking supporting documentation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the mobile or the existence of a seizure memo for the cash and earring.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant could prove ownership of the seized property and whether the police had properly documented the seizure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proof of ownership or a seizure memo, the application for release of property cannot be granted, emphasizing the applicant's burden to establish ownership.
Result: Application dismissed.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . has been filed against order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Junnardeo, District Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.10/2023 and order dated 19.06.2023 passed by J.M.F.C. Tamiya, District Chhindwara in MJCR No.35/2023 by which application filed by applicant under Section 451 /457 of Cr.P.C . for release of property on interim custody has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that his father has lodged a false report and when he was arrested, police had seized his mobile and took away an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as took away his gold earring and accordingly, an application was filed for release of said property on interim custody. By order dated 19.06.2023, J.M.F.C. Tamiya, District Chhindwara has rejected the said application and revision filed by applicant has also been dismissed by order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Junnardeo, District Chhindwara.
3. Challenging the orders passed by Courts below, it is submitted by applicant that so far as mobile is concerned, he had purchased through online process and invoice of the same was sent on gmail account of his brother and his brother has refused to give him the hard copy of the said invoice, therefore, he could not produce the invoice of the mobile to show that he is the owner of the mobile. So far as an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, it is submitted that few days back he had sold the crop in the Krishi Upaj Mandi for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and out of that he has already spent Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were kept in the house which were taken away by police. It is further submitted that so far as earring is concerned, it was falsely not shown to have been seized by police.
4. Considered the submissions made by applicant. 5. So far as mobile is concerned, it was seized by police. However, the same can be released only in favour of owner. It is fairly conceded by applicant that he is not in possession of receipt to show that he is the owner of mobile.
His contention that mobile was purchased by him by online process and invoice of the same was sent on the gmail account of his brother and since his brother has refused to give him the hard copy of the invoice, therefore, he is not in a position to produce the same. It is submitted by applicant that since his brother is in hunt for property, therefore, he is favouring his father
6. It is for the applicant to establish that he is the owner of the property and in absence thereof, property cannot be released. Since applicant has not produced any document to show that mobile which was seized by police belongs to him, therefore, Trial Court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application so far mobile is concerned.
Release of gold earring on supurdginama
7. So far as contention of applicant that gold earring was also taken away by police is concerned, he could not point out any seizure memo to show that gold earring was ever seized. Whether it was taken away or it was not taken away cannot be subject matter of the inquiry while deciding the application under Sections 451 /457 of Cr.P.C . Once the earring is not shown to have been seized by police, then there is no question of release of the same.
An Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 8. So far as refund of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on supurdginama is concerned, it is fairly conceded by applicant that no seizure memo has been prepared by police.
9. Accordingly, the applicant was directed to point out as to whether land was purchased by him or not?
10. It is submitted by Shri Vimal Patel that he is in possession of 3 acres of land but fairly conceded that said property was not purchased by him but he claims that he is in illegal possession of the same.
11. Be that whatever it may be. 12. Once applicant has failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was seized by police and in absence of any seizure memo coupled with the fact that applicant is claiming
