Allowed

Meena Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

Patna HC23 Apr 2014CR. MISC./9963/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed application quashing order rejecting release of seized Scorpio vehicle. Court held vehicle registered to petitioner who is not accused. Directed lower court to verify ownership and release vehicle within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.01.2014 set aside; learned Special Judge directed to release vehicle to rightful owner within three weeks after verifying ownership.

Meena Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9963 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Meena Sinha .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Through Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Adv. For the E.O.U. : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Ms. Soni Shrivastawa, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 23-04-2014 The present application has been filed for quashing of
the order dated 28.01.2014 passed by learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, 1^stPatna in Special Case No. 40 of 2013 whereby
petitioner’s application for release of Scorpio VIXHE (white)
bearing Registration No. JH 10X 6747 has been rejected.

¶3

The D.A. case was registered against the husband of the petitioner who is an Assistant Engineer in the Building Construction Department. The Scorpio of the petitioner was seized during the raid of the house of the petitioner’s husband. Subsequently, the application was filed for release of the vehicle in question, which was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna, since the investigation is pending with liberty to renew the prayer after completion of the investigation.

¶4

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶6

2/8

¶7

the vehicle was purchased from the earning of the petitioner after seeking loan from Allahabad Bank which gets duly reflected in the Income Tax return. The registration and insurance documents of the vehicle are in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application dated 12.12.2013 before the learned court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna for release of the vehicle in her favour claiming herself to be the bonafide owner and the purchaser of the said vehicle with regard to which certificate of registration was issued by the Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner claimed to be an Income Tax payee, being financially and economically independent and as such, she purchased the vehicle, on loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakh Rupees) from Allahabad Bank and by making a cash payment of Rs. 2,92,513/- out of her own financial resources and thereby, she made a payment of Rs. 8,92,213/- to M/s Pratik Automobile for purchasing the Scorpio in question.

¶8

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for Economic Offences Unit that the investigation is still pending, hence, the release of the vehicle will hamper the proper investigation of the case and during trial the vehicle may be required.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this is

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶11

3/8

¶12

not in dispute that the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner and petitioner has not been made accused till date. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the vehicle to rot in the premises of police station.

¶13

It is well settled law that the question of release of the vehicle should be decided by the Court judiciously and expeditiously. Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the power of the Court for order for the custody/disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases and the procedure by the police upon the seizure of the property which read as follows:-

¶14

“Section 451 Cr. P.C.- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an 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”.

¶15

“Section 457 Cr. P.C.- (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

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶17

4/8

¶18

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.

¶19

(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 any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation”.

¶20

Hence, Section 451 Cr. P.C. clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate order with regard to such property such as (i) for proper custody pending conclusion of the enquiry and trial (ii) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed off after recording such evidence as it think necessary (iii) if the property is subject to speedy natural decay, to dispose off the same.

¶21

The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Basavva Kom

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶23

5/8

¶24

Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and Another reported in (1977)4 SCC 358 observed in paragraph no.4 as under :-

¶25

“The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶27

6/8

¶28

in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.”

¶29

The issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 451 Cr. P.C. for release of the seized articles was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 Paragraph 7 of the judgment elaborates the condition and the purpose of exercise of power under Section 451 Cr. P.C. which reads as follows:-

¶30

“In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

¶31

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

¶32

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

¶33

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the 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

¶34

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶35

7/8

¶36

recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

¶37

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.”

¶38

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna has not considered the question of release of the vehicle in true perspective. In the circumstances, the order dated 28.01.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, 1^st Patna in Special Case No. 40 of 2013 is set aside. The learned court below is expected to get a report from the concerned transport office with regard to the rightful owner of the seized vehicle and after getting the registration/ownership properly verified, pass appropriate order for release of the vehicle to its rightful owner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶39

It is needless to say that the learned court below may ask the petitioner to submit the Xerox copy of the registration paper, insurance documents and photograph of the vehicle in question on affidavit with undertaking that the petitioner will not alienate or transfer the vehicle in question and produce the same before the learned trial court as and when required.

¶40

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9963 of 2014 (3) dt.23-04-2014

¶41

8/8

¶42

With the above observation, this application is
disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Amrendra/-

Meena Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayanand Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Uma Shankar Mishra @ Khelari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Yog Narayan Jha and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Quamuddin Khan Vs The State Of Bihar Through D.g.p. Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Md. Sarfaraj Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Jamshed Alam Vs The State Of Bihar