Back
Supreme Court
Honble M.B. SHAH & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondents
S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2745 of 2002
Decided On : October 01, 2002
Where the vehicle is not, claimed by the accused, owner, or the Insurance Company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company then Insurance Company be infor- med by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance Company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months front the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. (Para 18)
Where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in Police custody, it would be open to the S.H.O. after preparing proper Panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, suits articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. (Para 14)
(2). It is the prosecution version, as per the FIR lodged on 7.2.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police D Division, Surat that petitioners and other Police personnel are involved in offences punishable under Secs. 429, 420, 465, 468,.477-A and 1 14 IPC. It is alleged that when they were working at various Police Stations, they have committed offences during the period from 20.2.1992 to 23.11.2001 by replacement of mudammal articles including golden ornaments by other spurious articles, misappropriation of the amount which was kept at the Police Station, unauthorised auction of the property which was seized and kept in the Police custody pending trial and tampering with the records of Police Station. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 20.6.2002 rejected the application against the order passed by the trial Court granting remand of the petitioner. Hence, these special leave petitions.
(3). At the time of the hearing of these matters, learned Counsel for the parties submitted that various articles are kept at the Police Station for a long period by not adhering to the procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C., which creates difficulties for keeping them in safe custody. Finally, the sufferers are - either the State exchequer or the citizens whose articles are kept in such custody. It is submitted that speedier procedure is required to be evolved either by the Court or under the rules for disposal of muddamal article which are kept at various Police Stations as most of the Police Stations are flooded with seized articles. It is, therefore, submitted that directions be given so that burden of the Courts as well as at the, Police Station can, to some extent, be reduced and that there may not be any scope for misappropriation or of replacement of valuable articles by spurious articles.
(4). Learned Counsel further referred to the relevant Sees. 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which read thus:-
``451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.–When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper, custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, ``property includes
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
457. Procedure by Police upon seizure of properly.–(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any Police Officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
