NAVIN VASANTRAJ MODH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge (in charge) Nagpur on 16.8.2007, whereby the Criminal Revision Application which arose out of common order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur, below Misc. Cri. Appln. Nos. 1573/2006, 1818/2006 and 2000/2006 (which were applications by different claimants to the seized property in Crime No. 213/2006, reported at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur) came to be dismissed.

(2.) It appears that Vishalbhai Narendrabhai Parekh running a business in the name and style as "R.V. Jewellers" and Tarekh R. Vitthaldas" had preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 1573/2006 to claim seized gold reported to the learned Magistrate by the Police from Tahsil Police Station. Another claimant Sachin Prabhakarrao Sutone had filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 1818/2006 claiming the same property, while the present applicant also preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 2000/2006 to claim seized gold. It may be noted that Crime No. 213/2006 was reported to by Tahsil Police Station under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the investigation, the police had seized gold weighing 4.350 grams and some cash amount in the sum of Rs. 1,52,000/.

(3.) Considering three applications preferred as above by different claimants in respect of the seized property reported to the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate on the basis of averments made in the various applications and material placed before him dealt with the question as to who is prima facie entitled to possession of seized property in Crime No. 213/2006 reported at Tah-sil Police Station, Nagpur. On primafacieview of the matter, the learned Magistrate did not find material in support of the application filed by one Sachin Prabhakarrao Sutone and also regarding the application made by present applicant. It was observed that the present applicant did not file any document to corroborate his contention about alleged ownership of the seized gold. According to the learned Magistrate, copy of the Item Register filed by the present applicant did not reveal as to how he came into possession of the property in question. While the learned Magistrate considered the contention by the Investigating Officer concerned that the prime accused Manish had delivered 1200 grams gold to co-accused Sachin Sutone who, in turn, out of the said 1200 grams gold sold 800 grams of gold to the applicant Navin Vasantraj Modh. Thus, on the ground that the present applicant appeared aprima facie purchaser of the stolen property and he did not produce any document to show his legal possession of the ingot gold weighing 798 grams allegedly recovered from his possession. It was concluded that he is not entitled to possession of ingot gold weighing 798 grams. Thus, prima facie when the accused Manish Pasari in the case had not claimed the amount as well as gold; the learned Magistrate going by settled principles of law that owner or a person in the lawful possession of the property is entitled to claim its possession pending trial thus finding that Vishalbhai Parekh, who preferred Criminal Application No. 1573/2006 is prima facie is entitled to have possession of gold weighing 4.345 kgs. and cash amount of Rs. 162,000/ . Conditional order was passed to direct release of seized gold and cash of Rs. 1,62,000/ seized during investigation in the Crime No. 213/2006 to Vishalbhai Parekh (applicant in Criminal Application No. 1573/2006) subject to his executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. Fifty lakhs with a surety in the like amount with further conditions imposed against the said claimant Shri Vishalbhai and he shall not change the nature of the properties either personally or through agent and shall not cause any damage to the property given in his possession and furthermore; he shall not dispose of the property until further order and shall produce the same in the Court whenever required by the Court. Thus, it was conditional order provisionally passed and is subject to final order to be passed by the Court at the conclusion of the trial. The common order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur, was challenged in revision. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge incharge Nagpur dismissed revision application on the ground that it was an interlocutory order and revision was untenable in law.