Delhi District Court
Shri Sonu Goel vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2014
Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 48/14
Unique Case ID: 02404R0272012014
Shri Sonu Goel
S/o Late Sh. R.D. Goel
R/o C2/173, West Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi110034
Proprietor of M/s Shakti Industries
F6, Sector1, DSIDC Bawana
Industrial Complex,
Delhi. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Devender Singhal
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Singhal
R/o B8/183, Sector3, Rohini,
Delhi110085. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.09.2014
Date on which Order was reserved: 20.10.2014
Date on which Order pronounced : 03.11.2014
Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 1 of 10
Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014
O R D E R:
The present revision petition is directed against the orders dated 01.08.14 and 27.08.14 passed by Ld MM Rohini Courts, Delhi. By order dt. 01.08.14, Ld MM has been pleased to release plastic mould machine in favour of respondent no. 2 herein( who was complainant in case FIR no. 464/14 with PS Bawana) on superdari while by subsequent order dated 27.08.14, Ld MM has been pleased to dismiss similar application moved by present revisionist for releasing the said plastic mould injection machine on superdari to him on the ground that said machine had already been directed to be released on superdari to Devender Singhal i.e respondent no. 2 herein.
In brief, FIR no. 464/14 U/s 406 IPC was registered at PS Bawana in pursuance to directions U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., against the present revisionist at the instance of respondent no. 2 Devender Singhal. During the course of investigation, plastic mould injection machine came to be seized by the investigating agency on 31.07.14. The respondent no. 2 herein moved an application for releasing the said machine on superdari by placing reliance upon Bill no. 083 dt. 20.02.12 purportedly issued by Man Technologies Pvt. Ltd wherein the name of consignee is mentioned as 'D.K Industries WZ 283/6, Vishnu Garden, West Block, Gali no. 3, PO Wali Gali, Delhi18' as Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 2 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 also upon the copy of Consignment Note no. 349042 dt. 21.09.12 wherein also, the name of consignee is mentioned as M/s. D.K Industries. The said application came to be allowed by Ld MM vide order dt. 01.08.14 after reply was filed by ASI Satbir Singh that the documents furnished by said applicant had been duly verified and the said machine belonged to the applicant and investigating agency had no objection to the release of said machine on superdari to him.
Subsequently, the present revisionist moved similar application for release of the aforesaid plastic mould machine on superdari to him by relying upon bill no. 063 dt. 28.06.12 issued by Nilgiri Mould Plast wherein the name of purchaser has been mentioned as 'M/s. Shakti Industries, F6, Sector1, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi'. He also relied upon another invoice no. F 13/035 dt. 03.09.12 issued by Man Technologies Pvt. Ltd wherein also the name of buyer is mentioned as M/s. Shakti Industries supra. However, the said application has been disallowed by Ld MM for the reasons already mentioned herein above.
Both the above said orders have been assailed by way of present revision petition mainly on the ground that Ld MM did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist while passing the impugned order dt. 01.08.14 allowing the application moved by respondent no. 2 despite the fact Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 3 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 that said machine had been seized by the police from the factory premises belonging to the petitioner/revisionist and the said machine was also belonging to him.
Ld counsel of petitioner/revisionist vehemently argued that the impugned orders are bad in law and have been passed in haste by Ld MM without providing any opportunity of hearing to him at the time of passing the order dated 01.08.14 and without getting proper enquiry conducted at the time of passing subsequent order dt. 27.08.14. In support of his submissions, he submitted that the machine which has been seized by police, is not of 'plastic mould injection' but is a machine of " Crate Mould" for which no claim was laid by respondent no. 2. He also referred to the written statement whereby respondent no. 2, according to him, had received his entire claim towards full and final settlement in respect of business run by M/s. Shakti Industries from premises no. F6, Sector1, DSIDC, Bawana, supra. He also argued that respondent no. 2 has changed the contents of his police complaint and this fact came to knowledge of revisionist when he sought information under RTI. He also referred to the relevant documents placed by him in this regard, on record. He, therefore, urged that both the impugned orders dt. 01.08.14 and 27.08.14 should be set aside and machine in question should be directed to be released on superdari to the present revisionist. Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 4 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 Per contra, the revision petition has been opposed by respondents more particularly by respondent no. 2 on the ground that no revision lies against an order passed U/s 451 Cr.PC directing release of case property on superdari, in view of bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.PC. In support of said submissions, Ld counsel of respondent no. 2 placed reliance upon judgment reported at 2004 Bombay CR(Cri)11 titled as " Pirappa Mahadeo Birajdar Vs. Arti Co. and Ors."
It was argued on behalf of both the respondents that the impugned orders are proper and same have been passed by Ld MM after proper appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case and thus, they do not require any interference from this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
While countering the objection regarding maintainability of revision petition raised on behalf of respondents, Ld counsel of revisionist submitted that revision petition is very much maintainable under the law as the impugned order has substantially affected the right of revisionist as the machine in question which was seized from the factory premises belonging to revisionist, has been directed to be released on superdari to respondent no. 2. In support of his respectful submissions, he also placed reliance upon the following authorities: Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 5 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014
1. 1978 Criminal Law Journal 165(SC), titled as Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra.
2. 1974 Criminal Law Journal 231(Punjab and Haryana High Court) titled as Ishar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Others.
3. 1992 Criminal Law Journal 723 (Rajasthan High Court) titled as Raju & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan.
4. 1993 Criminal Law Journal 3109(Karnataka High Court)titled as T. Narayanaswamy Vs. State and Others.
5. 1997 Criminal Law Journal 1614 (Jaipur Bench)titled as Mahadev Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.
6. 2001 Criminal Law Journal 1223(Gujarat High Court)titled as State of Gujarat Vs. Manoj Kumar Achalaji Khatri.
7. 2003(2) MHLJ 735(Bombay High Court) titled as Milind Vs. State of Maharashtra.
Firstly, I proceed to decide the issue of maintainability of present revision petition. In the authority relied by ld. counsel of respondent no.2, it has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its decision dated 27.02.2004 that orders passed U/s 451 Cr.P.C. do not decide the rights of the parties and therefore, they are interlocutory orders and no revision is maintainable against such orders.
As against the said decision, ld. counsel of petitioner has placed reliance upon subsequent judgment of same High Court i.e. Hon'ble Bombay Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 6 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 High Court passed in the matter titled as Madhukar Motiram Manohare vs. State of Maharashtra passed in Criminal Application (Apl) No. 499 of 2011 decided on 22.11.2011 wherein also, similar issue was raised and discussed before Hon'ble High Court. After considering the relevant provisions contained in Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. and the bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., it has been held that order passed with respect to interim custody of seized articles in a criminal case U/s 451 and / or Section 457 Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and thus, such order is revisable. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter titled as D'damas Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in Crl. W.P. No. 1531 of 2006 decided on 15.07.2008.
Similar view has also been taken by other High Courts in the following authorities:
i. Bimal Panja vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7209/09 decided on 30.09.2009 by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court;
ii. Gurukrupa Tractors Thro Ghanshyamsinh R. Gohil vs. State of Gujarat passed in Crl. Application No. 116/08 decided on 30.06.2008 by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court; Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 7 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 and iii. Satpalsingh Ajitsingh Bajaj vs. Kalyani Trading Co.
passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 64 of 2000 decided on 19.10.2000 by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of D'damas Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd. supra as well as by other various High Courts in the above mentioned authorities, there is no scope of doubt that an order passed on application U/s 451 Cr.P.C. is revisable and bar of section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is not applicable thereto.
This brings me down to the next issue as to whether the impugned order dated 01.08.2014 and subsequent order dated 27.08.2014 passed by Ld. MM are legally sustainable in the eyes of law or not. As already mentioned above, the machine was seized by the investigating agency on 31.07.2014 from the factory premises bearing no. F6, Sector1, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi belonging to present revisionist. This fact is also mentioned by Ld. MM in the order dated 27.08.2014. Still, no opportunity of hearing is shown to have been given to the revisionist at the time of allowing the application for releasing the machine in question on superdari to respondent Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 8 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 no.2 herein, vide order dated 01.08.2014. Thus, same has resulted into violation of principles of natural justice as atleast an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the present revisionist from whose factory premises machine in question was undisputedly seized by the police, before passing an order on an application moved by respondent no.2. Moreover, it was also the pious duty of Ld. Trial Court to hold proper enquiry in view of the issues raised by present revisionist that machine seized by the police, is actually crate machine or mould machine; the machine was owned by present revisionist or was belonging to respondent no.2, etc. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that impugned orders dated 01.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 are legally not sustainable under the law and thus, both the said orders dated 01.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to Ld. Trial Court with direction to hold proper enquiry while deciding applications moved by revisionist namely Sonu Goel and respondent no.2 namely Devender Singhal, by affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and to decide both the said applications afresh, in accordance with law.
For the said purpose, it would be open for Ld. MM to examine the relevant witnesses during the course of enquiry, if so required. Both the parties may raise appropriate contentions before Ld. Trial Court during the Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 9 of 10 Crl. Rev. No. 48/14, P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 03.11.2014 course of said enquiry. Ld. MM is directed to conclude the said enquiry and to decide both the applications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. During the pendency of said applications, the machine in question shall remain in custody of police authority.
Considering the fact that machine in question is presently in possession of respondent no.2, IO/SHO concerned of PS Bawana are directed to repossess the machine in question from respondent no.2 forthwith as per rules and its release shall depend upon the decision / order to be passed by Ld. MM on the applications of petitioner/ revisionist Sonu Goel and respondent no. 2 Devender Singhal, as directed hereinabove. Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order, as per rules.
File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on 03.11.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
Sonu Goel vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 10 of 10