Dismissed

The State of Mharashtra v. Shobha Aseemkumar Bhattacharya

Bombay HC25 Nov 2014WP/675/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL under Article 227 was filed challenging an order allowing the return of seized immovable property after the accused husband was acquitted. The judge noted the Assistant Sessions Judge lacked revision jurisdiction but observed that since the husband was acquitted, the agency had no power to retain the property, rendering the writ petition unnecessary. The petition was rejected with no interfe

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Mharashtra Vs Shobha Aseemkumar Bhattacharya — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Ingale 1/4 12.WP.675.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2014

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Shobha Aseemkumar Bhattacharya .. Respondent

¶8

Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for the Petitioner. Ms.Susan Abraham, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard Ms.S.S.Kaushik, the learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner- the State of Maharashtra. Heard Ms.Susan Abraham, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶12

2 The husband of the respondent was arrested in C.R No. 28 of 2007 registered at Puranda police station, DistrictGadchiroli. In the course of investigation into the said C.R., Puranda police station gave some information to the Neral police station, pursuant to which, Neral police station also registered a case in respect of some cognizable offence against the husband of the respondent. Apart from other offences, the husband of the respondent was accused of having committed offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter 'UAP' Act). In the course of the investigation, the immovable property

¶13

Ingale 2/4 12.WP.675.14

¶14

belonging to the respondent was seized by the police. The respondent made an application before the learned Magistrate seeking 'return of property', by removing the seal put thereupon by the police. The learned Magistrate, by the order dated 01/03/2013, rejected the said application. The respondent then moved the Court of Sessions at Alibaug by filing an application for revision, challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This revision application, which was dealt with by an Assistant Sessions Judge, was allowed and the police were directed to remove the seal put on the immovable property i.e. house property, and hand over the keys thereof to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State of Maharashtra has approached this Court by filing the present petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, and its inherent powers. The prayer in the Writ Petition is that the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the revision application be set aside.

¶15

3 It does appear to me that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of Sessions, by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such revision applications are required to be dealt with by the Sessions Judge, or by such Additional Sessions Judge/Judges to whom they would be assigned.

¶16

4 Nevertheless, the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge proceeds on the ground that the police had no powers or authority to seize, or attach immovable property

¶17

Ingale 3/4 12.WP.675.14

¶18

in the course of investigation. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge observed that section 102 of the Code, which enables the investigating agency to effect seizure of certain properties, in the course of investigation, does not extend to the seizure of immovable property, and that police had no power or authority to effect seizure/attachment of any immovable property in the course of investigation.

¶19

5 I find that the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application of the respondent, had referred to some provisions in the UAP Act, which according to him, permitted seizure or attachment of even immovable property. This reasoning of the learned Magistrate was not considered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. It is, however, submitted by Ms.Susan Abraham, the learned Counsel for the respondent that the procedure described in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for seizure or attachment, had not been followed in the instant case and that, therefore, in any case, the investigating agency was not entitled to seize, or attach the property in question.

¶20

6 However, the matter has to be looked at from an altogether different angle. I am informed that the trial of the husband of the respondent has ended in an acquittal. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in revision, the property was also handed over to the petitioner.

¶21

7 In view of the acquittal of the husband of the respondent, it would not be possible to permit the seizure/attachments of the property in question by the

¶22

Ingale 4/4 12.WP.675.14

¶23

investigating agency. There is therefore no question of interfering in the matter in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶24

8 Petition is rejected.

¶25

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

The State of Mharashtra v. Shobha Aseemkumar Bhattacharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Mharashtra v. Shobha Aseemkumar Bhattacharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Tej Bahadu Singh Vs Sachin Anjanrao Jagtap and Anr.

Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan'S Bhavan College Vs Shri.Pradeep Mohanlal Desai and Ors.

Amey Sharad Joshi Vs Vishal Narendra Bhandari and Anr.

Mahadev Dagadu Patil (Nanagare) Vs Tarabai Mahadev Patil (Nangare) and Anr.

Kalpana Vinod Shah and Anr. Vs Vishni Lanchand Rajusth and Anr.

Mahadev Dagadu Patil (Nanagare) Vs Tarabai Mahadev Patil (Nangare) and Anr.