Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Singh & Anr vs State & Anr on 31 May, 2013
S.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No. 857/2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Bheru Singh v. The State of Raj.
& anr. & anr.
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 857/2007
under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. against the order
dated 17.1.2007passed Addl. Sessions Judge (FT),
Rajsamand Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal
No.19/2006.
Date of Order : 31.5.2013.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J.
Mr. B.S. Rathore, for the petitioners.
Mr. Panney Singh ,Public Prosecutor for the State.
BY THE COURT:
Sessions Case No.37/1982-State v. Ashok Kumar etc. under Section 395 IPC etc. was decided by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand on 22.12.1986. In this case it was ordered by the court that Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand will pass the order regarding disposal of seized articles under Section 452(2) Cr.P.C. The judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge was challenged in the High Court and the High Court also upheld the order regarding disposal of article and again S.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No. 857/2007 2 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand was authorised to do the needful. Case was transferred from one court to another court uptill it reached to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand.
After hearing both the parties, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand on 26.5.2004 in Criminal Misc. Case No.244/1991 had ordered that Rs.10.52 lacs seized in this case should be returned to the Commissioner, Devsthan Vibhag, State of Rajasthan with the direction that he should use the amount in development of Nav-Durga Mata Mandir as per procedure.
The order dated 26.5.2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was again challenged in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge(FT), Rajsamand and that court dismissed Criminal Appeal NO.19/2006 filed by Bheru Singh and Chavand Singh and by order dated 17.1.2007 that court had upheld the order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand.
Now, the order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Rajsamand passed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2006 has been challenged by Bheru Singh and Chavand Singh in this S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No. 857/2007 before us.
It has been argued by the petitioners that in relation to FIR No.14/1982 of Police Station, Diver for the offences under Sections S.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No. 857/2007 3 395 IPC etc., an amount of Rs.10.5 lacs was recovered from the accused-persons and out of it particularly on the information of accused-petitioner Bheru Singh an amount of Rs.3.20 lacs, Rs.22,000/- and Rs.30,000/- were recovered. It has been stated that the petitioners were convicted under Section 395 IPC but they were acquitted in appeal by the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioners have prayed that when they have been acquitted from charges of offences under Section 395 IPC etc. , then the money seized from them should be returned only to them and not to now to Commissioner, Devsthan Vibhag as was ordered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand.
I have perused the record. During the trial, accused-petitioners Bheru Singh and Chavnd Singh had nowhere claimed that they admit the recovery of cash from them and they nowhere claimed the seized cash to be their own. During the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also they did not claim the seized cash. At the time of final arguments in the trial court also, they nowhere argued that seized cash belonged to them and it is only after their acquittal by the High Court, they have started claiming huge amount of cash recovered in the case.
After hearing both the parties, I am fully convinced that accused-petitioners Bheru Singh and Chavand Singh are putting a mala fide claim on huge cash amount seized in the case. No doubt they have been acquitted by the High Court by taking benefit of doubt but in S.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No. 857/2007 4 every case when accused are acquitted by the courts, it is not necessary for the courts to return the seized articles only to the accused. After making a proper enquiry, a competent court can pass order in favour of either the complainant or the accused or any third party who appears to be entitled to the seized property. In this case, by conduct of the accused-petitioners, they are estopped from claiming the amount. Had the cash belonged to them, they should have made the first claim on it right at the time when they were produced before the Magistrate for the first time and then at the time of their bail application and then at the time when charges were framed against them. They have nowhere claimed the seized amount at all these junctures and it is only when they got an order of acquittal in their favour, they have started claiming the seized cash also.
In the circumstances of the case, I do not think it to return the amount to them because the orders of the two courts below do not appear to be perverse or mala fide. This is a criminal revision and not a criminal appeal and the revisional court is not supposed to interfere in the concurrent orders passed by the courts below unless there is a glaring irregularity in the order of the trial court. No glaring irregularity has been brought to my notice in the orders of the courts below.
S.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No. 857/2007 5 Following rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court also supports my view:-
(1) Amar Chand v. Shanti Bos, AIR 1973 SC 799, (2) Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 2485, (3) Pathhamma v. Mohd., AIR 1986 SC 1436, (4) State of Orissa v. Nakul Sahu, AIR 1989 SC 663, (5) Girija Nandini Devi v. Virejndra Narayan Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124.
In the circumstances of the case, this revision petition does not deserve success which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order of the court below is hereby affirmed.Record of lower court be returned within a week along with a copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner, Devstahan Vibhag also.
( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.
mlt/