Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Dhir on 5 June, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI:DELHI
( Crl. Revision No. : 09/07 )
FIR No. : 460/2005
U/s : 406/420 IPC &
138 NI Act
PS : Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Ajay Dhir
Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Through Authorized Representative
Mr. Raja Imam/Mr. L.D. Sharma,
A-6, First Floor, Connaught Place,
New Delhi- 110001 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State
2 Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. S.S. Jain
R/o H. No. 420B, U & V Block,
Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
3 Ajay Dhir
S/o Sh. S.K. Dhir,
R/o H. No. 132-D, Block-A.C.
Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi. ... Respondents
2
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner- Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd against the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case bearing FIR No.460/05, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi titled as "State Vs. Ajay Dhir", whereby the applications seeking release of jewelery articles on superdari moved by the petitioner/ applicant and respondent no.2 have been disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision-petition are that on the basis of the complaint of the first informant/ complainant (respondent no.2 herein), a case was registered against the respondent no.3 (accused therein) vide FIR No. 460/05 at P.S Shalimar Bagh, wherein it was stated by the first informant/complainant that accused (respondent no.3 herein) visited his jewelery shop in April, 2005 and introduced himself as a senior functionary of a political party and expressed the desire to buy jewelery for the marriage of his brother-in-law and to promote his business in Delhi and Canada. It is alleged that after convincing the first informant/complainant, the accused ( respondent no. 3 herein) took jewelery worth Rs. 2 lacs and gave 3 jewelery worth Rs. 70,000/- and cheques for Rs. 1.25 lacs to the complainant/ respondent no.2. On the next day, the accused/respondent no.3 asked for some more jewelery and accordingly jewelery worth of Rs. 11 lacs was handed over to him. Thereafter despite repeated request and demands made by the complainant (respondent no.2 herein), neither the jewelery was returned nor any amount was paid. During the investigation of the aforesaid case, jewelery articles in question were seized by the police vide seizure memo dated 25.8.2005. It is stated that the respondent no.3/accused has pledged the jewelery in question with the petitioner in lieu of the loan availed by him. It is further stated that since the petitioner company was having a charge over the said jewelery articles, it moved an application seeking release of the said jewelery/articles on superdari before the ld. Trial Court. It is stated that the respondent no.2 herein, who was the first informant in the FIR No.- 460/05, P.S Shalimar Bagh, also moved an application seeking the release of the aforesaid jewelery/articles in his favour on superdari. The said applications moved by the petitioner and respondent no.2 were disposed of by the ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.11.2006, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has released the aforesaid ornaments/articles in favour of the first informant/ 4 respondent no.2 on superdari.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision-petition wherein it has been prayed that the aforesaid impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court may be set aside and the aforesaid articles seized by the police vide seizure memo dated 25.8.2005 may be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner.
3. Upon filing of the present revision-petition, the notice of the same was issued to the respondents. TCR was also summoned and the same has been received.
4. I have heard the arguments on the revision-petition put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the respondent no.1-State, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the TCR. The arguments have not been addressed on behalf of respondent no.3, despite opportunities being given. 5
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case. It is submitted that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that jewelery articles in question were pledged by the respondent no.3 with petitioner company by way of collateral security, in lieu of the loan availed by him and as such the petitioner company continue to have first charge over the said pledged articles. It is further submitted that the said jewelery articles were seized by the police from the custody and possession of the petitioner company and accordingly the said articles were liable to be released to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent no.2 was not having any lien over the aforesaid jewelery articles as the said articles have been allegedly purchased by the respondent no.3 from the respondent no.2. It has been further submitted that the ld. Trial Court erred in observing that for any contractual obligation inter se between the respondent no.3 ( accused therein) and the petitioner herein, the respondent no.2 could not be fastened with any liability. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court is contrary to the material on record and is not sustainable in law 6 and it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the ld. Trial Court may be set aside and the aforesaid jewelery articles may be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner herein.
6. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. APP for the respondent-State that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that ld. Trial Court has passed an appropriate order on the basis of the material on record and he prays that the present revision-petition filed on behalf of the petitioner may be dismissed.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the ld. Trial Court is perfectly justified and is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not have any lien over the jewelery articles as the said jewelery articles were the case property in the case bearing FIR No. 460/05, P.S Shalimar Bagh and therein the respondent no.2 was the first informant and as such the ld. Trial Court has rightly released the articles in 7 question on superdari to the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the aforesaid jewelery articles and the same were correctly identified by him in the TIP proceedings and as such the said articles have rightly been released on superdari in favour of the respondent no.2 by the ld. Trial Court. It has been further submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court and it has been prayed that the present revision-petition filed on behalf of the petitioner may be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, respondent no.1 -State and respondent no.2 and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the TCR. The arguments have not been addressed on behalf of respondent no.3, despite opportunities being given.
9. The present revision-petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case bearing FIR No.460/05, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi titled as "State 8 Vs. Ajay Dhir", whereby the applications seeking release of jewelery articles on superdari moved by the petitioner/ applicant and respondent no.2 have been disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that jewelery articles in question were pledged by the respondent no.3 with petitioner company by way of collateral security, in lieu of the loan availed by him and as such the petitioner company continue to have first charge over the said pledged articles. It is further submitted that the said jewelery articles were seized by the police from the custody and possession of the petitioner company and accordingly the said articles were liable to be released to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent no.2 was not having any lien over the aforesaid jewelery articles as the said articles have been allegedly purchased by the respondent no.3 from the respondent no.2, however the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the record as the perusal of the impugned order reveals that ld. Trial Court have properly appreciated the material on record and have come to the correct and reasonable conclusions on the basis of the material available 9 on record.
Section 451 of the Cr. P.C deals with the order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases and it provides that 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. It is pertinent to note here that while passing an order regarding the release of the articles on superdari, the court does not determine the title of the respective parties in respect of the said articles. In fact , superdari is only an entrustment of the articles in question by the court in favour of a party , who executes superdiginama and undertakes to produce the said articles as and when required during the trial of the case before the court.
In the instant case, respondent no.2 herein was the first informant in the case FIR No. 460/05 P.S Shalimar Bagh and the aforesaid jewelery articles were seized vide seizure memo dated 25.8.2005 by the police during the investigation of the above mentioned case and as such the articles in question were the case property in the said case. Further, the first informant (respondent no.2 herein) have identified the aforesaid articles in the TIP proceedings 10 conducted by the Ld. Link MM of the Ld. Trial Court. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the ld. Trial Court has correctly released the seized articles in question in favour of respondent no.2 and have assigned appropriate reasons for the same.
10. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case. It is also submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the material on record and is not sustainable in law, however, the said contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioner does not hold water and are devoid of any merits as perusal of the impugned order reveals that it has been passed by the ld. Trial Court on the basis of the proper appreciation of the material on record and is based upon the sound, cogent and just reasoning.
11. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
11
Accordingly, the present revision-petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the aforesaid impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is hereby dismissed.
TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the ld. Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 05.6.2009) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
12