The Court allowed the criminal revision challenging the dismissal of an application for return of seized property. Directed the trial court to return cash and ornaments to the petitioner on execution of a bond.
Directed trial court to return cash and property to petitioner on execution of a bond of Rs.5,000/-
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.R.C.No.1885 of 2012
ORDER
This criminal revision case is filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3493 of 2012 in Cr.No.183 of 2012 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C, for return of cash of Rs.4,34,500/-, two gold chains, one pair of ear studs and three lockets to the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the second respondent/A1 stopped the car of the petitioner and threatened him by showing a pistol stating that he came from the Vigilance Department and asked him to show the bag. Then, he took the bag forcibly stating that the petitioner has been doing illegal gold business. When the petitioner informed him that he is ready to show the accounts, A1 stated that he would manage the higher authorities if half of the amount in the bag was given to him. On suspicion, the petitioner with the help of local persons caught hold of A1 and on enquiry, A1 informed that he is a gunman of Kotagari Vidyadara Rao. Hence, a case in Cr.No.183 of 2012 of Eluru Rural Police Station was registered against A1 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 384 IPC. As the said property is in the custody of the police, the petitioner filed the impugned application
for return of the property in question and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order impugned.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner collected the aforesaid money from the shop owners, by giving the ornaments, which were ordered earlier and that it is essential for the purpose of his business.
5. It is evident from the record that it is the petitioner, who set the law in motion and it is not in dispute that the entire money seized from the petitioner belongs to him and further the ornaments also belong to him. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the said cash and property is necessary during the course of trial. This Court is of the view that the seizure of the property can be proved by way of examining the panchanama witnesses and also the complainant-petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the custody of the property. The trial Court is directed to return the cash and the property to the petitioner on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner shall not alienate or alter the nature of the articles concerned and produce the same as and when required by the trial Court.
6. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
8th October, 2012
sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of seized cash and ornaments which belong to him.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Kotagari Vidyadara Rao
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
