Delhi District Court
Manish Kumar Goswami vs The State on 24 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL : ASJ-02:
CENTRAL : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-
CNR Number: DLCT01-013407 2021
Cr. Rev. No. 187/2021
Manish Kumar Goswami
S/o Sh. Lalita Prasad Goswami
R/o H. No. 217,
Gali No. 8, Ashok Nagar,
North East,
New Delhi-110093. ..... Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State
Through PP ....... Respondent No.1
2. Air Transport Corporation, (Assam) Pvt. Ltd.,
37,Rani Jhansi Road,
Pahar Ganj, Central,
Delhi, India. ....... Respondent No.2
Date of Institution : 08.10.2021
Date of Decision : 24.02.2022
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2022.02.25
14:58:32 +0530
Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") is directed against the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as "ACMM 01") Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 324/17 u/s 420/468/471/409/34 IPC police station Pahar Ganj whereby an application of the revisionist/accused seeking release of two vehicles bearing No. DL-8C-AP-1390 and DL-9S BA 6611, on superdari, was dismissed.
2. The facts born out from the Trial Court record are that the aforementioned FIR (324/17 PS Pahar Ganj) was registered at the behest of complainant company Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Private Ltd. (respondent No. 2 herein) on the allegations that revisionist/accused, alongwith his associates, being employee in the company siphoned of the money belonging to the complainant company from its accounts and deposited the same in his personal account by making false and fabricated entries in the company's data.
3. After filing the chargesheet before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist/accused moved an application for release of two vehicles bearing No. DL-8C-AP-1390 and DL-9S BA 6611 on superdari, in his favour. However, vide impugned order, Ld. Trial Court dismissed his said application observing that the revisionist/accused could not disclose the source of funds with which he purchased the said vehicles. The revisionist being Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 2 of 6 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2022.02.25 14:58:59 +0530 aggrieved by the said order has filed the present revision.
4. I have heard Ld. counsel for revisionist on the maintainability of the revision petition.
5. The first and foremost issue require consideration of the Court is maintainability of the present revision petition since the order under challenge seems to be interlocatory in nature and the revision against the interlocatory orders is barred u/s 397(2) CrPC.
6. Ld. counsel for revisionist has strongly argued that the present revision is maintainable since the impugned order passed on the application seeking release of vehicles on superdari is final qua the revisionist/accused, therefore, the said order cannot be termed as interlocatory order. In order to support his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon on various judgements passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and by various Hon'ble High Courts. The first judgment "S.V. Chandran Vs. The State", Crl. RC No. 1217/18, strongly relied upon by Ld. Counsel is delivered by Hon'ble Madras High Court, wherein it has been held that the revision against the order passed on superdari applications is maintainable. This court has considered the judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel, however, the same is not of any help to the revisionist/accused since the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court only has persuasive value on this Court particularly when there are direct judgements delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the issue in hand, which would be referred in the later part of this order.
7. Ld. counsel has also relied upon the judgements of Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 3 of 6 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2022.02.25 14:59:09 +0530 "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) SCC 283 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court" and "Manjeet Singh Vs. State Crl. MC No. 4485/2013 decided on 10.09.2014 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court" and submitted that in both the said cases, it was observed that Magistrates should expeditiously pass appropriate orders to return the vehicles seized by the police during investigation. Both these judgements are not directly or indirectly dealing with the issue of maintainability of revision petition filed against the orders passed on the superdari applications but in the said cases directions have been given to expeditiously decide the applications moved by the parties for superdari.
8. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has further relied on "Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Saddan and Anr. Crl. MC 779/2016 decided on 01.03.2016, "Sanjeev Sharma Vs. State of Delhi and Ors. Crl MC 2902/2009" and "People for Animals and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Mahazzim and Anr. Crl MC 2051/2015" decided on 08.08.2018, all delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Placing reliance on these judgements Ld. counsel submitted that in all these three cases, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has acknowledged the orders passed by Revisional Courts filed against the orders of Ld. MMs on the superdari applications. With due respect to all these judgements, the same are not applicable on the question under consideration in this revision since the issue of maintainability of revision was not involved before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in those cases.
9. There are direct authorities "Anisa Begum Vs. Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 4 of 6 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2022.02.25 14:59:26 +0530 Masoom Ali" 1986 Cri LJ 503 AND "Shiva Leasing Company Vs. State" (79) 1999 DLT 148, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the matter in question wherein it has been held that the revision challanging the order passed by Ld. MM on the application u/s 451 CrPC is interlocatory in nature against which the revision is not maintainable.
10. During the course of arguments, both the above judgements were also brought into the notice of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, who has argued that these judgements are not applicable on the facts of the present case since in those cases, the case property sought to be released was observed to be required during trial and the custody, if, given to the superdar was termed as interim custody, disposal of which would be after trial. It was argued that the vehicles sought to be released in the case in hand are owned by the revisionist, therefore, the same cannot amount as interim custody of the vehicles. This Court is not in agreement with Ld. Counsel since in both the aforementioned cases before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and in the case before this Court or before Ld. MM, the owners were/are seeking release of properties owned by them which were seized by the police during investigation, therefore, both the judgements, "Anisa Begum (supra)" and "Shiva Leasing Company(Supra)" are directly applicable on the issue in hand.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion particularly in view of the decision of "Anisa Begum (supra)" and "Shiva Leasing Company (supra)", the impugned order is held to be interlocatory order as it has not terminated the proceedings but Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 5 of 6 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2022.02.25 14:59:54 +0530 the trial goes on till it terminates in acquittal or conviction. The impugned order has not decided any right but only the interim custody of the vehicles till disposal of the case. No substantive right of ownership of the vehicles has been decided by way of impugned order, consequently, the impugned order passed on the application moved by the revisionist praying for releasing the vehicles on superdari is purely interlocatory in nature, therefore, revision petition against the said order in view of Section 397 (2) CrPC is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court alongwith copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room.Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2022.02.25
15:00:03 +0530
Announced in the open court (Charu Aggarwal)
on 24th February-2022 ASJ-02/Central
Distt./THC/Delhi(j)
Manish Kumar Goswami Vs. The State & Ors. 6 of 6