STATE Vs. SYED BELQUIS SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal revision cases are against the common order in Criminal M.P.Nos.47, 56 and 62 of 1985. Three petitions were filed seeking return of gold jewellery, silver articles and some documents. The offence is stated to be under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as disproportionate assets are alleged to have been found and during the raid the gold jewellery and other articles were seized. Criminal M.P.No.47/85 is at the instance of the daughter of the accused officer and she says that she is the owner, of gold jewellery and silver articles and some documents and she is entitled for return thereof. Criminal M.P.No.56/85 is filed by the brother of the officer and he is seeking for the return of the gold necklace as he is the owner. Criminal M.P.No.62/85 is filed by the wife of the accused officer claiming that she is the owner of the articles. In the counter filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that these petitions are filed with the sole object ofstalling the investigation and to explain away the assets in the possession of the officer. Further they have not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim and the case is still under investigation and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the third party at this stage for the return of the seized articles. The properties and documents as well were produced before the court on 2.11.1984 and at the request of the investigating officer, the documents were returned to him for the purpose of further investigation on at the request of the officer the gold and silver articles were permitted to be kept in bank locker for safe custody. The gold and silver articles and also documents were seized during the house search. The court below negatived the plea that the investigating officer should be permitted to retain the gold and silver articles for the purpose of investigation. It is held that section 457, Crl.P.C. applies to the situation and the court has ample jurisdiction to return the articles. The court below stated that the accused officer did not claim that these jewels belong to him and nobody else has laid any claim for these items of property produced into court. It is further held that prima facie case is made out and P.Ws.1 to 3 are entitled for the items of property which they are claiming in their petitions.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel for ACD Cases contended that the court has no jurisdiction to return the property under section 457, Cr.P.C. and there is no provision enabling the return of the property. Further in any event, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the title. The enquiry should be confined only to their right to the possession of the property but not the ownership and the enquiry and finding regarding prima facie ownership is manifestly illegal and unjustified. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in a situation where the articles have been seized, the persons who are the rightful owners can claim the property and seek for return of the property. The court is justified in enquiring into the matter whether the claimants are prim a facie entitled to the properties, and section 457, Cr.P.C. is the appropriate provision that is applicable in the circumstances.

(3.) To get at the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a grip over sections 451, 452 and 457, Cr.P.C. which are as follows: