G CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent power of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., the petitioner, the Manager of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai, has filed the present petition to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy in Crl. R.C. No. 26 of 1993 dated 15-6-1993 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai made in Crl. M.P. No. 2960 of 1993 dated 13-1-1993 which was filed on his behalf under S. 451 of Criminal P.C. praying for the interim custody of a cash property of Rs. 33, 35, 766.25 in the judicial custody.

(2.) The short facts which lead to this petition as culled out from the records of the Courts below are stated as follows. A total sum of Rs. 95,00,000 /- was transmitted by the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Branch through a metador van bearing registration No. TN 69-6105 accompanied and escorted by the staff of the said Bank on 12-2-1992. While the van was coming along the main road within the jurisdiction of the respondent police, an incident of highway robbery had taken place by intercepting the said van by about 13 persons armed with weapons and fire-arms at about 9 a.m. on that day and consequently, except a portion of the cash which merely consisted of currency of various denominations duly bundled and packed in several trunk boxes, the major portion of the cash having been decamped and robbed by the accused persons. Consequently, the law was set in motion and the investigating machinery was geared up and during the said sojourn, 13 persons were arrested and they have accordingly figured as accused in this case for the various offences under Ss. 120-B, 395, 397 read with 107 of the Penal Code and Ss. 3, 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and so on. During the course of investigation, from the 18 accused abovereferred and from the prosecution witnesses numbering about 60 in all, a total sum of Rupees 33,55,766-25 were seized and recovered being the part of the looted property followed by the said accused being lodged in judicial custody. Completing the investigation, charge-sheet. according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has been filed before the trial Court and the trial is yet to commence very shortly. The accused also were on bail complying the conditions and are yet to face the trial. In this backdrop, a petition under S. 451 of the Criminal P. C. was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai in Crl. M.P. No. 2960 of 1993 by and on behalf of the petitioner praying for the interim custody of the said cash which the learned Magistrate had declined to accept and consequently, a revision in Crl. R.C. No. 26 of 1993 was filed by and on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy and on reassessing the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the light of the circumstances and the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge also declined to accept the prayer asked for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner seeks relief of setting aside the said impugned orders under the inherent power of this Court by filing this petition under S. 482 of the Code.

(3.) Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fervently contended before me while seeking the remedy of setting aside the impugned orders that both the courts below erred seriously in acceding the request of the petitioner for the interim custody of the property in the sense that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in keeping the cash abovereferred in the safety locker amounts to the cash losing the interest every day and by which every person who deposit money into the bank as well as the Bank were actually the losers and in the context if it is viewed, the interim custody of the said property can be entrusted with the petitioner on furnishing the proper and suitable bond d security for the return of the same. Per contra, Mr. Raghupathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would contend that if the prayer asked for by the petitioner is acceded, it was apprehended that no fair trial could be conducted in this case for the simple reason that the part of the looted money now in the judicial custody was recovered not only from the 13 accused facing the trial in this case, but also from 60 witnesses examined in and around the area of the place of occurrence and other parts of the State in various denominations under separate seizure of mahazars attested by the witnesses and that if that was the position, if the money was ordered to be returned on the basis of whatever conditions or securities, then the quantum of the cash alone may be made available to the court but not the actual properties recovered from the accused as well as from the witnesses and in case if the accused denied it or the witnesses denied it, it will become very difficult for the prosecution to establish its case. For the abovesaid reason, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor objects the prayer being projected by the learned Senior Counsel.