Allowed

Barsa@Usharani Sundara v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Nov 2021CRLMC/1107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Orissa set aside the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's prayer to release a seized mobile phone. The Court held that lower courts failed to verify ownership details despite evidence of purchase, directing the lower court to release the phone after verifying ownership and imposing suitable conditions.

What did the court decide?

CRLMC allowed; impugned order set aside; lower court directed to release seized mobile phone after verifying ownership and imposing suitable conditions.

Barsa@Usharani Sundara Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 1107 of 2021

¶3

Barsa @ Usharani Sundara

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv.

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

23.11.2021

Order No. 03.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that no instructions have been received in the meantime as yet. However, considering the fact that adequate opportunity has been granted to the State to obtain instructions and looking into the limited prayer of the petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both parties.

¶14

In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2020, whereby the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur in rejecting the prayer for release of the mobile phone of the petitioner was confirmed and the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected.

¶15

Page 1 of 1

¶16

The petitioner is accused in G.R. Case No. 254 of 2020 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur corresponding to Ranpur P.S. Case No. 202 of 2020 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 341/294/323/ 332/353/224/225/506/34 of IPC. In course of investigation several articles including one OPPO Mobile Phone (touch screen) was seized by the police. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur with a prayer to release one of the seized mobile phones, i.e., OPPO A37 in her favour. Learned J.M.F.C., however, rejected such prayer on the ground that the seizure list does not mention that the petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone (OPPO A37) bearing IMEI No.865241033546932, 865241083546924. The petitioner carried the matter in revision to the Court of Sessions by filing Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2020. Learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order held that the record reveals seizure of one OPPO mobile phone touch screen but the petitioner prayed for release of a particular phone, i.e., OPPO A37 bearing IMEI No.865241033546932, 865241083546924 and accordingly, confirmed the order of learned J.M.F.C..

¶17

Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶18

Mr. Tripathy has taken this Court to the copy of the cash memo enclosed as Annexure-3, which reveals that the petitioner had purchased one mobile phone i.e., OPPO A37 bearing IMEI

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

No.865241033546932, 865241083546924 on 11.08.2017. It is submitted on such basis that it is the same mobile phone which was seized by the police, though police failed to mention the IMEI number and the mobile name correctly in the seizure list. Therefore, the learned courts below have committed illegality in not releasing the seized mobile phone in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner is duty bound to establish her ownership over the seized mobile phone as otherwise the court would not be in a position to direct release thereof in her favour. 8. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it reveals that the sole ground for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for release of the mobile phone is so-called mismatch between the description of the mobile phone as made by the petitioner in her petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and the seizure list prepared by the police. But, only because the police wrongly mentioned the model number of the mobile or omitted to mention the IMEI number, does not necessarily mean that the said mobile is different from the one which was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned courts below should have taken pain to verify the correctness of the submissions made by the petitioner instead of rejecting his prayer at the threshold. It goes without saying that the IMEI number of the seized mobile can be easily verified and if the same matches with the number furnished by the petitioner, the mobile phone can be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

For the above reason therefore, the impugned orders are rendered unsustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Learned court below is directed to pass necessary orders for release of the seized mobile phone in favour of the petitioner after being satisfied with regard to its ownership and other details and by imposing suitable conditions in accordance with law.

¶24

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶25

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶26

A.K. Rana

¶27

Page 4 of 4

Barsa@Usharani Sundara v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barsa@Usharani Sundara v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghab Kumar Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Prasad Panda Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Rashmi Ranjan Banua Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Dhaneswar Soren Vs State of Odisha