Delhi District Court
Brij Lal Aggarwal vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 11 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S P GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No : 107/2006
Brij Lal Aggarwal ....Petitioner
versus
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
and another ....Respondents
ORDER
Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Brij Lal Aggarwal against the order dated 2/11/2006 passed by Ld. ACMM by which residential premises D-137A, first floor, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi were ordered to be sealed U/s 83 CrPC.
2. Revision petition was admitted for hearing. Notice of the revision petition was given to the respondents. Trial court record was summoned.
3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the trial court record.
4. On perusal of the trial court record, it reveals that one Bhuvan Aggarwal was declared PO in the proceedings U/s 7 (1) A COFEPOSA. To compell his appearance, the Ld. trial court issued process U/s 82/83 CrPC. In pursuance of the process issued U/s 83 CrPC, the property in question was sealed.
5. Present petitioner Brij Lal Aggarwal filed objections before the 2 Ld. trial court for de-sealing the said property as the same belonged to him and Bhuvan Aggarwal, his adopted son, had no concern with the property. Vide impugned order dated 2/11/2006, the Ld. trial court did not entertain the claims and objections of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come in revision.
6. On perusal of the trial court record, it reveals that there was no document whatsoever before the Ld. trial court to order sealing of the property D-137A, first floor, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi U/s 83 CrPC showing any right title or interest of accused Bhuvan Aggarwal in the said property. The petitioner has filed on record number of documents to show that this property was purchased by him from one B B Aggarwal son of B R Aggarwal resident of D-67, Mahendru Enclave. Delhi. The property in question was purchased on the basis of Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney and will dated 29/10/98 etc. Payment for purchase of the property in question were made by the petitioner through cross cheques in the name of the seller. The petitioner has filed on record photocopy of the pass book of Bank of India, photocopy of the cheque book issued by him towards payment of the consideration of the property in question. It has further come on record that the accused Bhuvan Aggarwal was student of DPS in the year 1998 when the property in question was 3 purchased by the petitioner. The respondent has not placed on record any document to show if the property in question was purchased by Bhuvan Aggarwal or that he was having independent source of income to purchase the property in question. There is also nothing on the record to infer if the property in question was purchased by Bhuvan Aggarwal in the name of some other person. Merely installation of telephone connection in the premises in question on 17/2/99 in his own name does not make Bhuvan Aggarwal owner of the property in question. It has further come on record that this telephone connection was got transferred in the name of the petitioner on 19/11/04 much prior to the initiation of the proceedings against Bhuvan Aggarwal. The respondents have not placed on record any document to show if any telephone call was received in the name of Bhuvan Aggarwal in the premises in question. The property in question still stands in MCD record in the name of Arun Kumar and Sanjay Bansal.
7. Since Bhuvan Aggarwal is the adopted son of the petitioner, as claimed by him, submission of address at the premises in question by him in Importer and Exporter Code does not divest the petitioner of his right in the property in question.
8. Since there was no cogent document on record showing Bhuvan Aggarwal to be owner of the property in question, in my view the Ld. trial court was not justified to order sealing of 4 the property D-137A, first floor, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi belonging to the petitioner. The order of the Ld. trial court dated 2/11/2006, thus can't be sustained and is set aside. The property in question is ordered to be de-sealed. The possession of the same is ordered to be restored to the petitioner.
9. Revision petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off accordingly. Trial court record along with copy of the order be sent to the Ld. trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 11/1/2007 Additional Sessions Judge New Delhi