Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sevaram Khandegar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 9 October, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.R No.1995/2020
Sevaram and others Vs. State of MP
INDORE; DATED - 09/10/2020
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt.
Per Virender Singh J:-
1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Special Police Establishment has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 04th May 2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 846/2018 (Smt. Jagdish Rathi & others Vs. the State of MP). His contention is that in the aforesaid revision, relying on the earlier decision of the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Division Bench of this court has declined the identical prayer for the release of the ornaments seized during the investigation. He urged that in the light of the aforementioned order dated 20/3/2018, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out, therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. The order dated 04/05/2018 reads as under: --
"HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Jagdish Rathi & others Vs. State of MP) Cr.R. No. 846/2018 Indore, Dated: 4/5/2018 Learned counsel for the Lokayukt establishment at the outset has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 20" March 2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 367/2018 (Smt. Rita Rathi Vs. State of MP ). His contention is that the aforesaid revision wasfiled for release of amount and the present petition wasfiled for release of ornaments. He has stated that in the light of the order dated 20/3/2018 passed by the Division Bench Presided over by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, no case. For interference is made out in the matter.
The order dated 20/3/2018 reads as under: "Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate with Shri Chetan Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Cr.R No.1995/2020 Sevaram and others Vs. State of MP Shri Mukesh Porwal, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned Special Judge, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Indore on 13.11.2017 whereby an application for release of an amount of Rs.13,99,300/- recovered during search of the residential house of the petitioner on 23.07.2013 remained unsuccessful.
Shri Jagdish Rathi, husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Sagar. An FIR for an offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is registered. The husband of the petitioner is one of the accused in the said proceedings. During the search of the house of the accused, a sum of Rs.13,99,300/- was recovered from the present petitioner which was said to be a purchase price of 0.401 hectare of land received from one Mukesh Chaturvedi. The said amount of Rs.13,99,300/- has since been deposited in the Bank account.
The learned Special Judge declined the application for release of the said amount on the ground that there does not seem to be any justification for release of the amount inter alia on the ground that the matter is pending in Chhattisgarh State under the Prevention of Corruption Act and till such time the matter is finally decided, the amount lying in the bank deposit does not warrant any release in favour of the present petitioner. As per the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, investigations in respect of the allegations against the husband of the present petitioner are pending. In terms of Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the criminal Court is competent to pass an order as it thinks appropriate for the proper custody of the property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Since the matter is still pending investigation, the criminal Court has exercised its jurisdiction not to release the amount to the petitioner as the said amount is said to be a part of illegal gratification received by the husband of the petitioner.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Cr.R No.1995/2020 Sevaram and others Vs. State of MP The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat) that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the seized article in the police custody is not tenable. The argument is that the cash amount can be called upon by the police to produce before the Competent Court at the subsequent stages, but to deny the use of money by the petitioner is depriving her of her property.
We do not find any merit in the argument raised. Though the amount of Rs.13,99,300/- was seized in the year 2013 and the investigation is yet said to be not complete, but the fact remains that the amount is said to be part of illegal gratification received by the husband of the petitioner. The property has been kept in a Bank deposit; therefore, it is in safe custody, which can be given to the accused, in the event, the prosecution fails. We find that such order is based upon sound judicial discretion as the amount is said to an amount of illegal gratification. Thus, the order passed by the Special Judge not to release the amount to the petitioner pending investigation, does not warrant any interference. Such order passed by the Special Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is dismissed. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The admission is declined. "
3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid order, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of the learned trial Court. Therefore, the admission is declined and the petition is dismissed.
(S.C Sharma) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
sourabh
Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2020.10.13 14:11:05 +05'30'