Chattisgarh High Court
Sanju Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2017
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016
Page 1 of 7
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.358 of 2016
Sanju Nishad, S/o Bhagwanta Prasad Nishad, aged about 35
years, Occupation Business, R/o Jhajhpuri Kala, P.S. & Tahsil
Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Lormi, District
Mungeli (C.G.)
2. Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner: Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocates.
For State/Respondents: -
Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
09/05/2017
1. The jurisdictional police seized an amount of Rs.5,60,000/-
from the car owned and possessed by the petitioner in
exercise of the provisions contained in Section 102 of the
CrPC on 25-11-2016 and also seized the car in question i.e.
Nano bearing registration No.CG-10/FA-1422. The petitioner
made an application under Section 457 of the CrPC for grant
of custody of the car and to handover the amount in dispute.
The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate
W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016
Page 2 of 7
First Class, Lormi holding that the amount in question and the
car have been seized by the police under Section 102 (1) of
the CrPC, but such an information has not been given to the
Judicial Magistrate under Section 102 (3) of the CrPC,
therefore, the provisions of Section 457 of the CrPC are not
attracted. Learned Magistrate relied upon the decision of the
Madras High Court in the matter of The Supdt. of Customs &
Central Excise, Nagercoil v. R. Sundar 1. Questioning that
order, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred.
2. Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, would submit that the order impugned is
unsustainable in law.
3. Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf
of the State/respondent, would support the impugned order.
4. Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned amicus curiae, would submit that
seizure of property by the concerned police has necessarily to
be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102
(3) of the CrPC and the police officer making seizure is obliged
to submit information and non-furnishing of information would
not bar the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of
the CrPC which he has otherwise has to grant custody of the
seized articles even on the information submitted by any other
1 1993 Cri.L.J. 956
W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016
Page 3 of 7
person interested in that property on that behalf. He would
further submit that the learned Magistrate has picked-up some
sentences from the decision rendered by the Madras High
Court in R. Sundar's case (supra) and has rejected the
application which is absolutely unsustainable under the law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone
through the record with utmost circumspection and given
thoughtful consideration to the same.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's car and amount in
question were seized by the jurisdictional police. A plain
reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the CrPC indicates
that any police officer has power to seize any property which
may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which
may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of
the commission of any offence. Section 102(3) of the CrPC
obliges every police officer acting under sub-section (1) to
inform forthwith the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction.
7. Section 457 of the CrPC empowers the Magistrate to give
delivery of said property to the person entitled to possession
subject to certain conditions.
8. The question for consideration would be whether non-
submission of information by the police officer making seizure
W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016
Page 4 of 7
under Section 102 (1) of the CrPC to the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Section 102 (3) of the CrPC, which the police
officer is otherwise obliged, can take away the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate to grant custody / interim custody under Section
457 (2) of the CrPC.
9. Section 102 (3) of the CrPC mandates every police officer to
forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction. Therefore, such a provision is obligatory and
imperative. Non-reporting the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction cannot take away the authority of the concerned
Magistrate to deal with the property in terms of Section 457(2)
of the CrPC, as the provision of the Code casts an obligation
to report to the Magistrate by the police, but if the concerned
police inadvertently or willfully defaults to report, such default
would not oust the initial jurisdiction of the Magistrate in
respect of such seized property.
10. The Orissa High Court in the matter of M.S. Jaggi v.
Subaschandra Mohapatra2 has clearly held that the seizure
of the property whether reported by the police or any other
person, the Magistrate will have the jurisdiction under Section
457 of the CrPC, and observed as under in para 7: -
"7. From the aforesaid discussion, the following
conclusions arise :--
2 1977 Cri.L.J. 1902
W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016
Page 5 of 7
(1) Whenever the seizure of the property by the
police is reported to a Magistrate, his jurisdiction to
act further under Section 457 accrues. Such
report may be made either by a police officer or by
any other person interested.
......
......"
11. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate while deciding the matter has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in R. Sundar's case (supra) and declined to grant interim custody by picking up few sentences of the decision of the Madras High Court in R. Sundar's case (supra) to hold that such Magistrate has no jurisdiction. It further appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate has merely relied upon the few lines the judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Sundar's case (supra) and did not take into consideration the whole judgment much less the context and wrongly rejected the application under Section 457 of the CrPC.
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.3 has clearly held that "it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorce from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations form the judgment have to be 3 (1992) 4 SCC 363 W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016 Page 6 of 7 considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court" and observed as under in paragraph 39: -
"39. ... It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings. In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India [(1971) 1 SCC 85 :
(1971) 3 SCR 9] this Court cautioned:
"It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment.""
13. In view of above discussion, the learned Magistrate is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Section 457 (2) of the CrPC wholly on untenable ground.
14. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 25-11-2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi rejecting the application under Section 457 of the CrPC is hereby set aside and the application is restored to the original file of the said Magistrate W.P.(Cr.)No.358/2016 Page 7 of 7 for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration that the seizure of car has already been brought to the notice of the Magistrate. The application shall be decided within 30 days from the date of receipt of a cop of this Court.
15. Before parting with this case, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate, who on short notice argued the matter by placing relevant judgments as well as by submitting written submission.
16. The writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma