Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar Jatav @ Ajay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2015
CRA-2401-2014 (AJAY KUMAR JATAV @ AJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 20-07-2015 Shri D.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent State.
Shri Rajesh Mandiratta, counsel for the Victim/Andhra Bank.
Heard on I.A. No. 7931/2015 under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., whereby victim Andhra Bank has prayed for releasing the amount seized from the accused persons, in temporary custody of victim Andhra Bank in accordance with the directions made in the impugned judgment. A perusal of operative portion of the impugned judgment relating to the disposal of property involved in the case, reveals that after considering sub-section 5 of Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. and law laid down in the cases of Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 SCC (Cr.) 1991, Umashankar Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPLJ 585 and Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa, 2007 Cr.L.J. 3649, learned trial Court had directed that the amount of Rs. 62,000/- looted by the accused persons from Dattatre Padarkar and amount of Rs. 9,000/- looted from another victim Saurabh Verma be returned to them under Section 452 (4) of the Cr.P.C. after expiry of the limitation for filing the appeal against the judgment. It was further directed that remaining seized amount be returned under Section 452 (4) of Cr.P.C. to duly authorized representative of victim Andhra Bank after expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal against impugned judgment. It was further directed that in case appeal is filed within limitation, the property be disposed of in accordance with the judgment passed in appeal by the Appellate Court.
In this case two accused persons namely Devendra Patel and Ajay Kumar Jatav were convicted by the trial Court under Section 394 of the IPC for robbing, in all Rs.14,92,000/- and other articles from the possession of Andhra Bank and other persons. This criminal appeal is filed by appellant Ajay Kumar Jatav. It is not known whether appellant Devendra Patel has preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment or not? Appellant accused Ajay Kumar has opposed the application on the ground that the amount seized in the case belongs to appellant Ajay and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, he objected to delivery of the amount to the Andhra Bank before the disposal of this appeal.
Learned Panel lawyer for the respondent State has no objection if cash is released in the temporary custody of victim Andhra Bank, till disposal of this appeal. Leaned counsel for the Victim Andhra Bank submits that the amount seized is public money and disposal of the appeal is likely to take time. It has also been stated that the appellant never claimed the amount seized from his possession as his own before the trial Court. It has also been submitted that the trial is over and the amount seized is not required for evidential purposes nor is it liable to confiscation. In any case, victim Andhra Bank is prepared to abide such terms and conditions and to furnish such security as may be deem fit by the Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in their totality, in the opinion of this Court, the amount deserves to be released in temporary custody of the victim Andhra Bank in accordance with the directions made in the impugned judgment.
Consequently I.A. No. 7931/2015 is allowed. It is directed that the entire amount of cash seized in the case other than Rs. 62,000/- robbed from Dattatray Padharkar and Rs. 9,000/- from Saurabh Verma, shall be released in temporary custody of the duly authorized representative of Victim Andhra Bank, R.R.L. Branch, Bhopal, till disposal of this criminal appeal on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court for abiding by such directions made in this regard as may ultimately be binding upon the Victim Andhra Bank. C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE