RAJESH JEWELLERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred this criminal revision under sections 397 (1) of CrPC feeling aggrieved by the appellant Court's judgment dated 25.5.2005 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in criminal appeal No. 177/05; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and affirmed the order passed by CJM Shivpuri for forfeiture/confiscation of the property seized by the police Kotwali, Shivpuri in Crime No. 5/2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the police Kotwali, Shivpuri had registered a case at Crime No. 5/2000 for the offence under section 379 of IPC against one Shailendra Kumar from whom possession currency notes of Rs. 8,25,000/ - and 7.790 grams of old silver ornaments had been seized. During investigation, it is found that this property has been seized from the possession of Shailendra Kumar on the pretext that it may be stolen property, but on investigation nothing has been proved that aforesaid property belongs to some theft case. Thereafter, the applicant M/s. Rajesh Jewellers through its partner Rajesh Kumar filed an application for custody of the aforesaid seized property before the CJM, Shivpuri. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 5.2.2005, rejected the application filed on behalf of the applicant for custody of the seized property though, the main accused from whose possession the property had been seized has been discharged from the offence under section 379 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant had filed a Criminal Appeal No. 177/05 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The learned appellant Court after hearing both the parties, by impugned judgment dated 25.5.2005 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order for forfeiture of the concerning property as directed by trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by which, this revision petition on behalf of the applicant has been filed before this Court.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged property has been seized by the police on the pretext that it may be stolen property but as no offence under section 379 of IPC has been proved against any of the accused persons then certainly it is the Constitutional right of the applicant that he is entitled to get back the possession of the seized property from whose possession the property has been seized by the police if property does not belong to any criminal case and trial Court has wrongly ordered for confiscation/forfeiture of the aforesaid property without any legal provision. The only objection has been raised that the applicant could not produce any satisfactory document as to whether he has paid any income tax on the seized property or not. It is further submitted that the trial Court has no business for taking any action under the Income Tax Act. However, Income Tax Department had also filed petition for possession of the alleged property and that petition which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1027/01 has also been dismissed by this Court earlier and this Court has clearly directed that Income tax Department is free to take legal and proper action against the applicant with regard to the concerning seized property for recovery of income tax, if any, due on the applicant and in view of the aforesaid order dated 10.3.2004, now the applicant is entitled to get back the aforesaid seized property from the Court concerned and both the Courts below have wrongly rejected the application filed by the applicant for possession over the property. Hence, he prayed for setting -aside of the impugned judgment.