YASWANT POWAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INFORMATION is the Petitioner before this Court challenging the order dated 7.4.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in G.R. Case No. 1084 of 2002 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for release of certain gold ornaments as well as cash under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) CASH of the Petitioner is that he is the authorised agent of Rohit Jewelers, Mumbai dealing with manufacturing and sale of gold ornaments. In view of orders received from different jewelers the same were being supplied through the present Petitioner. On the date of occurrence the Petitioner being deputed by said Rohit Jewelers to supply ornaments to different jewelers in Orissa was moving from Jharsuguda to Bargarh in a bus. It is alleged that the accused persons on false pretext took him in a motor -cycle with intention to commit robbery, as a result of which the Petitioner raised hullah. Hearing his shout police rescued him and recovered gold ornaments as well as cash which had been taken away by the accused persons and seized the same. On the basis of such allegation, a case was registered. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 457 Criminal Procedure Code stating that as he was the custodian in possession of the seized gold ornaments as well as cash belonging to his employer Rohit Jewelers and after seizure the same are in custody of Jharsuguda police. A prayer was made for release of the gold ornaments as well as cash in his favour: Objection was filed by the A.P.P. stating that the said articles were seized from the accused persons while they were running away snatching from the Petitioner and there being no document to show that he is the authorized agent of Rohit Jewelers or that he was carrying the ornaments and cash for supplying the same to different jewelers on behalf of Rohit Jewelers, articles seized should not be released in favour of the Petitioner. Learned Magistrate in the impugned order rejected the petition by disbelieving the authorization letter which was produced before the court at a later stage.

(3.) FROM the prosecution case itself it appears that the gold ornaments and cash which were being carried by the Petitioner had been snatched away by the accused persons and the same were recovered from the accused persons and the same were recovered from the accused persons immediately after the occurrence and therefore there cannot be any dispute about the fact that at the time of occurrence the Petitioner was in possession of gold ornaments as well as cash. Now the question that arises for consideration as to whether the same should be released in favour of the Petitioner or not. In the case of Sunderbhai Amabala Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in, (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444. The Apex Court while dealing with Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of valuable articles and currency notes observed as follows: