M MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Case comes before us on a reference from our learned brother Radhakrishna Rao, J., on the question whether petitioners are entitled for return of the properties seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation from them, pending investigation. The reference was occasioned by adecision of a Division Bench of this court in State vs. Syed Belquisultana, the correctness of which was apparently doubted.

(2.) The facts of the case are the following: The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in R.C.No.9(A)/89-SPE, Hyderabad under Section 5(2) read with 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against one Sri Raghavayya, General Secretary of the South Central Railway Employees Union, Secunderabad. Petitioners 1 and 3 are the brothers and the 2nd petitioner is nephew of Sri Raghavaiah. On 15-3-1989, the investigating officer searched the premises of the petitioners bearing No.25-71 and seized several documents, papers,key of the locker and cash of Rs.25,400/- under two search lists. Out of the cash seized, Rs.2.5,000/- was stated to have belonged to one Imamuddin, a retired driver. Some of the documents were said to belong to the petitioners. Since key of the bank locker belonging to the petitioners was seized, the jewellery of the family could not be taken out or used during festival and religious occasions. The 1st petitioner filed Criminal M.P.No.265/89 on 19-6-1989 before the Special Court for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad for return of the documents and articles seized by the C.B.I. That was dismissed on 20-7-1989 with an observation that the petitioners could file a petition after investigation was over. The driver, Imamuddin filed Criminal M.P.No.259/89 for return of Rs.25,000/- and the same was paid to him after accepting a bank guarantee. Petitioners thereafter filed Criminal M.P.No.52/90 for return of seized articles. That was dismissal stating that the investigation should be completed within three months, on the aspect of the Jewellery and Fixed Deposit Receipts and thereupon, petitioners could file a petition after three months for return of those articles. The said period of three months having expired on 11-6-1996, petitioners filed Criminal M.P.No.257/90. The Special Judge dismissed that application by his order dt.26th December, 1990. He felt compelled to follow Balaji vs. State of A.P. and State vs. Belquis Sultana (1 supra) holding that the court had no jurisdiction under Section 457 to order disposal of the property before commencement of enquiry or trial, though, he was of the opinion, following the ratio of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. State and Ram Prakash Sharma vs. State of Haryana which were considered in Belquis Sultana (1 supra), that "Section 457 squarely applies to the stage where the matter is still under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed in contrast to Section 451, of the Code of Criminal Procedure". He felt that he was bound by the later decision of our High Court in Belquis Sultana (1 supra) and being a subordinate to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he could not but follow that decision. On facts, he found that the petitioner was entitled to return of the locker keys, since "the gold jewellery will not be marked as material objects at the time of trial and their value alone will be considered, for which the jewellery need not be retained". He therefore held that the petitioners were entitled to the return of locker keys and the documents mentioned in clause (c) though investigation was not completed. However, in view of the finding on point of jurisdiction, the Special Judge dismissed the application. It is against that order that this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

(3.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision in Belquis Sultana (1 supra) cannot hold the field in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Sharma. He also submitted that the Special Judge was right in his conclusion that Section 457 Cr.P.C. applies to disposal of property which was seized but whether produced or not in court during the course of investigation and before the enquiry or trial commenced.