Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. M. Satyamma vs The Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 1 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD(CRI)1, 2003(4)ALT356, 2003CRILJ3350
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking an appropriate direction as against the respondents 1 and 2 to provide and make available necessary funds in order to enable the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad for returning a sum of Rupees 75,000/- to the petitioner pursuant to the judgment made in C.C. No. 165 of 1996 dated 7-9-1998.
2. In order to appreciate and decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as prayed for, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.
3. The petitioner's daughter's marriage was performed with one Venugopal s/o Pochalu r/o Perkapalli somewhere in the year 1990-91. At the time of marriage, the petitioner had given some presents including some gold ornaments. It is the case of the petitioner that the son-in-law of the petitioner started harassing her daughter and in that connection a panchayat was held at Bellampalli on 3-1-1996 to settle the differences between her son-in-law and her daughter amicably. The panchayatdars have decided that the petitioner and her husband being the parents of the girl are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 82,400/- from the petitioner's son-in-law. In the galata that had taken place on the said day, the said amount was lost.
4. A report was lodged at the Police Station and a crime was registered in Cr. No. 2/96 against one Venugopal and others for the offence Under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police suo-motu registered another crime in Cr.No. 9/96 against the petitioner and her family members alleging that they have given a false complaint/information to the Police against the said Venugopal regarding the theft of the amount. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was recovered from one D. Venugopal and the same was deposited in the Court of the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad vide case property No. 38/1996.
5. That after filing of the charge-sheet in Cr. No. 9/96 the case was numbered as C.C. No. 165 of 1996 on the file of the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Asifabad. It so happened that during the pendency of enquiry and trial in C.C. No. 165 of 1996 a theft had taken place on the intervening night of 14/15-6-1996 in the property room of the trial Court and number of valuable properties were stolen including the amount of Rs. 75,000/- that was recovered a connection with Cr. No. 9/96. A complaint was lodged in this regard and some of the stolen properties were recovered and they were accordingly deposited into the Court by the Police of P. S. Chennur and P. S. Asifabad. We are not concerned with the further details as to what transpired after the recovery of some of the properties from the accused therein and the result of the case if any filed against them.
6. Suffice it to notice that the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate disposed of C.C. No. 165 of 1996 registered against the petitioner herein and her family members by the judgment dt. 7-9-1998 acquitting the petitioner and others for the alleged offence under Section 182 of IPC as not proved. In the process, the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Asifabad directed the unmarked amount of Rs. 75,000/- to be returned to the petitioner after the expiry of the appeal period. The said judgment has become final.
7. The petitioner thereafter filed Cri. M.P. No. 793 of 1999 in C.C. No. 165 of 1996 in the Court of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Asifabad under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for return of the said amount. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dt. 29-4-1999 expressing (the practical difficulty in returning the amount.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that the respondent-State is bound to make necessary arrangements for the return of the case property, which was deposited in the Court.
9. The High Court, having received the requisite information from the Court below about the theft and recovery of the properties requested the respondents 1 and 2 to provide funds to the extent of Rs. 94,245/-so as to enable both the Courts i.e. the Senior Civil Judge and the Junior Civil Judge at Asifabad to return the case property amount to the concerned parties and to avoid the adjudication of the case on merits on judicial side in W.P. No. 14909 of 1999 (the present writ petition). The learned Standing Counsel for the High Court states that there has been no response whatsoever to the letter addressed by the Registrar General dt. 2-3-2002 requiring the respondents to make necessary arrangements and provide funds in order to enable the Courts below to return the case property amount to the concerned parties.
10. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether a writ of Mandamus would lie directing the respondents 1 and 2 to make available necessary funds in order to enable the Courts below to discharge its duty to return the case property to the petitioner?
11. The question is not res integra but squarely covered by an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Basava v. State of Mysore, . The Supreme Court having referred to the objects and scheme of the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that "where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to re turn it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. . .. . . The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal."
(Emphasis is of Ours).
12. In the said case the Police submitted a charge-sheet to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and produced the articles before the Court. But the Court moved the Sub-Inspector to retain the property until the same is verified and valued by a goldsmith for which the Court moved the higher authorities for sanction of necessary funds. The Sub-Inspector was also directed to bring the goldsmith. The Sub-Inspector took back the articles and kept them in the Guard Room of the police station. The articles were actually produced before the Court but were retained by the Sub-Inspector under the directions of the Court. The Supreme Court in the circumstances observed that "a production before the Court does not mean physical custody or possession by the Court but includes even control exercised by the Court by passing an order regarding the custody of the articles ......... when once the Magistrate, after having been informed that the articles were produced before the Court, directed the Sub-Inspector to keep them with him in safe custody, to get them verified and valued by a goldsmith, the articles were undoubtedly produced before the Court and became custodia legis."
13. In the case on hand, the Police having registered the case and seized the amount deposited the same into the Court. The Court ultimately found that the petitioner is lawfully entitled to receive the said amount. It so happened that on the intervening night of 14/15-6-1996 a theft has been taken place in the strong room of the Court and various properties including the amount liable to be returned to the petitioner were lost. It is stated that some properties were recovered during the investigation. The money was admittedly stolen from the property room of the Court. In the circumstances, the State cannot resist the claim of the petitioner for return of the said money. The Court does not have any resource at its command and it cannot be made to return the said amount. This Court cannot issue any direction, which is incapable of compliance. The State is to make availability the necessary funds in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process and majesty of law. It is the bounded duty of the State to assist the Court in discharge of its legal and constitutional obligations. The Court cannot generate funds and meet an unforeseen contingency as the one that had arisen in the present case. The Court itself cannot avoid its responsibility and duty to return the amount to the eligible claimants after disposal of the criminal case. The amount deposited in the Court became custodia legis. There is no escape from the responsibility to return the amounts to the eligible claimants. Making provisions for sufficient funds for administration of justice undoubtedly is the responsibility of the State. The money is required to be made available by the State in order to enable the Court to discharge its duty to implement its own order.
14. We are of the considered opinion that the money belonging to the petitioner and that were seized and kept in the safe custody of the Court has to be returned in terms of the judgment made in C.C. No. 165 of 1996 on the file of the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Asifabad. Precisely in the circumstances, the High Court on administrative side requested the respondents 1 and 2 to make available necessary funds for payment of the same to the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 have not responded to the said letter. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition resisting the claim of the petitioner.
15. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing respondents 1 and 2 to make available necessary funds as required by the High Court in its letter ROC. No. 1472/96, D/- (1) dt. 2-3-2002, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amounts to be so made available by respondents 1 and 2 shall be sent to the Court of the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Asifabad in order to enable the said Court to return the amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner.
16. There shall be an order accordingly. No costs.