MEHAR INDIA ENTERPRICESES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 cr. P. C. seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of the f. I. R. in Cr. No. 53 of 2007, on the file of kuppam Police Station.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public prosecutorforthe respondent-State. Perused the records.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, first petitioner is owner of the property viz. , cash of rs. 60,000/- and 13 ingots of silver metal weighing 22. 809 kgs, seized from second petitioner, and cash of Rs. 55,000/- and 15 silver ingots weighing 27. 566 kgs, seized from the possession of third petitioner, and that petitioners 2 and 3 being the employees of the first petitioner were carrying them with necessary transport vouchers issued by the first petitioner and that they were illegally seized from their possession by the Sub-Inspectorof Police, Kuppam on 17-05-2007 at 03-45 p. m. , Though more than five months have elapsed since the seizure of the property from the possession of petitioners 2 and 3 and registration of the case in Cr. No. 53 of 2007 under Sections 41 (1) (a) and 102 Cr. P. C. , the police have not filed final report in the matter till now. On the other hand, the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police to the learned judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuppam on 10-08-2007 regarding the ownership of the property shows that as per the investigation, first petitioner herein A. J. Shafiudd in is owner of the seized property. Petitioners/a-2 and a-3 were apprehended and the property was seized from their possession on mere apprehension. Since it is not disputed and is also borne out by the investigation that first petitioner herein is owner of the said property and petitioners/a-2 and A-3 were carrying the said property on the instructions of first petitioner, covered by the necessary vouchers and other transport documents and further the investigation has not disclosed commission of any specific offence by any of the petitioners, further proceedings against them in pursuance of FIR in Cr. No. 53 of 2007 are held not sustainable.