Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Maru vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1081 of 2021
• Manoj Kumar Maru
---- Petitioner
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh
-----Respondent
___________________________________________________ Post for pronouncement of the Orders on ___08/04/2022__ ____Sd/-__ JUDGE 2 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on : 05.01.2022 Order delivered on : 08.04.2022 CRMP No. 1081 of 2021 • Manoj Kumar Maru S/o Ramnarayan Maru, Aged About 53 Years R/o Sadar Road Ambikapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Manipur Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent /State : Shri Praveen Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Order 08/04/2022 The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed seeking for releasing of seized raw material of Explosives, on Supurdna against the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No. 11/2021 by which the petitioner's application under Section 457 of the CrPC for grant of interim custody of the raw material (explosive substance) seized for commission of offence punishable under Sections 286 IPC and 9(b) of the Explosives Act, has been rejected. 3
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur and is owning a valid license for manufacturing, sale, purchase and stocking of the firearms and ammunition. On 01/11/2020, the police of Ambikapur registered Crime No. 724/2020 against the petitioner under Sections 286 IPC and 9(b) of the Explosives Act 1884 seized the raw material from his godown. The petitioner has moved application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, district Surguja for seeking interim custody of the raw material on supurdnama which was rejected vide order dated 14.01.2021 without any cogent reason holding that the investigation is not complete. Against the said rejection order, petitioner filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2021. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and illegal. He submits that the petitioner is a valid license holder for manufacturing, sale, purchase and stocking of the firearms and ammunition. He submits that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of any offence impliedly or directly but the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the matter is under investigation and only the raw material has been seized and the said material does not fall under the Explosive substances Act. As per the license condition, the petitioner is authorized to have manufacturing unit up to 100 kgs., firearms up to 100 Kgs. and manufacturing of firecrackers up to to 500 kgs. All these restrictions are in relation to the final products and not to the raw material. The license does not stipulate any 4 condition about the quantity of raw material which cam be kept in stock. The petitioner is in possession of valid license of the seized explosive substance (raw material of fireworks). As per the license issued by the District Magistrate, the petitioner is authorized to prepare upto 15 kgs. of final products for sale and the petitioner manufactures only 10 kgs. of final products per day which is less than the authorized outer limit for sale therefore this petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2021 arising out of the order dated 14.01.2021 passed in Criminal case No. 724/2020 and for custody of the raw material on supurdnama. Reliance has been placed in the matters of N.Devathathuvam Vs. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar in Cri. RC/ (MD) No. 488 of 2011, Madras High Court; K.Bhaskar Vs. Inspector of Police Virudhnagar Rural Police Station, Cuddalore District in Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2015; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and C.Arujunan and Others Vs. The Stte represented by Inspector of Police Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Mettur Salem District Cri.O.P. NO. 8341 of 2017.
4. On the other hand, State Counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the order passed by both the courts below are legal and justified and does not require interference.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Petitioner has filed the license issued by the District Magistrate (Annexure P/3) in the name of the petitioner for production of fire- crackers. Both the courts below have given a finding that the 5 petitioner was in possession of huge quantity of raw material of explosives which is against the conditions of the license but nothing has been mentioned in the license as to the maximum quantity of explosives permitted by the licensing authority to be stored or processed in a particular premises. Annexure P/3 is the license of registration filed by the petitioner, which reads as under:
foLQksVd fu;e 2008 dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 dk vuqPNsn 5 ¼d½ ls ¼d½ ns[ksA ¼[k½ fdlh ,d le; esa 100 fdyksxzke ls vf/kd oxZ 7] izHkkx 2] mi izHkkx &2 dh fofueZr vkfr'kckft;ksa vkSj 500 fdyksxzke iVk[ks vkSj Qqy>Mh dCts es j[kus vksj nqdku ij muds fodz;ds fy, vuqKfIr la[;k---------------------- 02@2017 A
7. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the matter of N. Devathathuvam Vs. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar in Cri. RC/ (MD) No. 488 of 2011, Madras High Court which reads as under:
"20. Time and again the Hon'blesupreme Court has been reiterating the principles and guidelines already settled, to be followed by the Courts in the matter of entrusting interim custody pending inquiry or trial. While dealing with the scope of power conferred on the Court for passng appropriate orders int he case of interim custody, a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. Stte of Mysore, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1749 : 1977 Cri. L.J. 1141:(1977) 4 SCC 358:1977 SCC (Cri.) 598, has held as follows :
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 6 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 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. "
8. 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.
9. In the case of interim custody of the property under the provisions of criminal procedure, the Court is required to satisfy itself that the owner of the property or the person entitled for possession of the same and after preparing detailed presence of the petitioner and the person facing accusation which may be used in evidence, property may be given in interim custody of the applicant or the person entitled for its possession on his furnishing security or bond with or without surety with a condition to produce the same as and when directed by the Court.
10. The fireworks/crackers can be treated to be the properties which are subject to speedy and natural decay. Hence it is for the Court to decide what is to be done when it is dealing with the interim custody of 7 such properties. When the Court is acting under Section Section 451 of the Code, it has also to bear in mind the relevant provisions in the concerned statute which provides for disposal of the property at the time of final disposal of the case. If the provisions of such statute provide for forfeiture or confiscation at the end of the trial on account of conviction of the accused, the Court has to make sufficient arrangements for future eventualities at the time of granting orders under Section 451 of the Code. In the case of N.Devathathuvam Vs. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar in Cri. RC/ (MD) No. 488 of 2011, Madras High Court has held as under:
23. Section 10 of the Explosives Act, 1884, provides forfeiture of explosives or any part of explosives in case if the accused were convicted.
Section 10 of the Explosives Act, 1884, goes thus:
"10. Forfeiture of explosives.- When a person is convicted of an offence punishable under this Act, the court before which he is convicted may direct that the explosive or ingredient of the explosive or the substance (if any) in respect of which the offence has been committed, or any part of that explosive,ingredient or substance, shall, with the receptacles containing the same, be forfeited."
24. In order to fulfill the statutory requirements as contained in the above said provision, necessary provision has to be made in the order under Section 451 of the Code by the Court. In the case of any contingency, namely, conviction of the accused at the end of the trial, there shall be 8 forfeiture of explosive or any part of it. In order to comply with such requirement, necessary conditions have to be imposed. IN the considered view of this Court, to satisfy the ingredients of Section 10 of the Explosives Act, the value of the part of the explosive can be directed to be deposited into the Court by the owner, apart from execution of personal bond.
11. In view of the Apex Court's case (Basava's case) the object of the code is that the property should be restored to the original owner, after the necessity to retain it ceases. As for this case, further retention of property is not necessary. Since the seized raw material is not in the nature to keep in custody either by the court or the police. If the said property is kept indefinitely or up to the period when the trial is completed they may become useless by undergoing chemical reaction with the atmospheric components. If necessary at the time of final hearing of the case, the trial court may record necessary evidence as to the nature of the property in detail.
12. Having regard to the document produced by the petitioner, explaining about the raw material seized from his premises of godown, it has to be held that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the seized property and is legally entitled for the interim custody of the seized raw material of explosives. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat with C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283, has laid down the guidelines for release of the properties seized during investigation.
9
13. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
in cash to the credit of the case before the court below from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid in four equal weekly instalments @ Rs. 25,000/- per week if the petitioner so desire.
ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned judicial magistrate.
iii) The concerned police station shall prepare proper panchnama of the particulars of the raw material and if deem necessary, photographs may be taken along with the same. The trial court is free to impose conditions which it deems fit and the raw material be handedover in supurdnama to the petitioner with the above conditions.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge suguna