ABDUL REHMAN ADAMBHAI SHETH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 Mahmadbhai Kalubhai lodged an information of an offence at Deesa Police Station on 16th April 1971 alleging that the present petitioner has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating in respect of a jeep car bearing No. GJC. 1878 and the offence was registered. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation seized the jeep car from the petitioner and thereafter followed a very curious and thoroughly illegal procedure of handing over jeep car to the petitioner after taking bond from him without reporting seizure to the Magistrate. After handing over jeep car in question the Investigating Officer sent a yadi on 26th May 1971 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class intimating to him the fact of handing over of jeep car to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 7th July 1971 called upon the Investigation Officer to explain how he handed over jeep car in question to the petitioner without the permission of the court and directed the Investigating Officer to produce the jeep car before him. Against this order the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 1971 to the Court of Sessions Banaskantha at Palanpur. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this order in this revision application.

(2.) The only question that arises for the consideration of this court is whether the property in respect of which an offence appears have been committed and which was seized by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation can be disposed of be a police officer without any order being obtained from the Magistrate having jurisdiction. What has been done in this case is that the Investigating Officer after registering the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating called upon the petitioner to produce the jeep car against whom information of offence was lodged and on petitioner producing the jeep car the Investigating Officer took a bond from him and returned the jeep car to him without notifying the seizure of the jeep car to the Magistrate. Of course a condition was incorporated in the bond that the petitioner should produce the jeep car as and when he is called upon to do so. The learned Magistrate has directed the Investigating Officer to produce the jeep car; and this revision application arises from that order.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Zaveri learned advocate urged that looking to the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and especially Chapter XIV till completion of the investigation and submission of the report either under sec. 169 or under sec. 170 and 173(1)(a) the Investigating Officer has power to deal with the property seized by him in the course of investigation without reference to the Magistrate.