Chattisgarh High Court
Tikendra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 August, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1291 of 2023
Tikendra Kumar Sahu S/o Rambilas Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Shitla
Mandir Kurud, Police Station- Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Simga,
District- Baloudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Shri Anil Tawadkar, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Smt. Astha Shukla, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
ORDER
28.08.2023 Heard
1) The petitioner has filed the present Cr.M.P. challenging the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.71/2023, by which the application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for Supurdnama has been rejected to the extent that seized articles i.e. three mobile phones have not been released to the petitioner on Supurdnama.
2) The facts of this case are that on 09.02.2023, the Police got information about transporting illicit liquor. Thereafter, the Police seized one Tata Zest Car bearing registration No. C.G.07-BR-7191 and a Van bearing registration No. C.G.07-BJ-3509 with 90 cartons of foreign liquor of Goa Whiskey i.e. 4499 nips total 809.82 bulk litres 2 and three Mobile Phones i.e. Oppo Reno 05 Pro, Nokia 2660 and Samsung S22 Ultra 05G. After investigation, the Police have registered an FIR bearing Crime No.62/2023 against the present petitioner along with five accused persons under Sections 34(2) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act.
3) The petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the seized three mobile phones on Supurdnama before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Simga, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) which was rejected vide order dated 11.05.2023.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the seized three mobile phones i.e. Oppo Reno 05 Pro, Nokia 2660 and Samsung S 22 Ultra 05G and invoices of the seized mobile phones are annexed with the petition as Annexure A/2.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1374 of 2020 in the case of Tikeshwar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 11.12.2020, Cr.M.P. No.524 of 2017 in the case of Jyoti Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another decided on 25.04.2017 and Cr.M.P. No.562 of 2016 in the case of Sonelal Patel Vs. State of C.G. and others decided on 07.07.2016 as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rocky Verma (died) thr. his legal Wife Smt. Juli Verma Vs. State of M.P. decided on 24.02.2021 have released the vehicle on Supurdnama and this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 3 He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 to buttress his argument.
6) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the contentions made hereinabove.
7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
8) In the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State of Gujrat, [2002 (10) SCC 283], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 & 8 observed thus :-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr., [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under-
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be 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 4 servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain 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. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. 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.
In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."
9) A Similar stand has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai vs. State of Gujrat and another, [2013(3) SCC 240], wherein it has been observed that it is not advisable to keep the seized articles in the police station for a long period.
10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. The seized three mobile phones i.e. Oppo Reno 05 Pro, Nokia 2660 and Samsung S22 Ultra 05G are directed to be 5 released and handed over to the petitioner on Supurdnama after due verification of the documents concerning ownership and execution of bonds with sureties.
11) As a result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha