MANJULATA JUGTAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 24. 8. 96 and 24. 10. 96. By the first order the learned Special Judge A. C. D. Cases directed the Addl. S. P. , A. C. D. Jodhpur to deliver the property to the competent person and if for certain articles he is not in a position to decide, he could make a report in the Court. By the second order dt. 24. 10. 96 the learned Special Judge directed the Addl. S. P. to obtain the articles from Manjulata and produce them in the Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are these. Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, husband of petitioner Manjulata, was the Medical Officer in a Government hospital. On 10. 9. 91 a raid was arranged and on search of his houses, including the house situate in Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, various articles were seized. THE articles which were seized from the Shastrinagar house of Jagdish Jugtawat were allowed to be kept by Manjulata who was his wife. During investigation, Dr. Narendra (brother of Jagdish), Sidhkaran his father and Dr. Jagdish himself filed applications in the Court for delivering articles seized by the police to them. All these applications were rejected by the Special Judge on 4. 1. 92 holding that since the articles were not taken in custody by the police, order for their disposal could not be passed by the Court. That order was challenged by Dr. Narendra by filing Misc. Petition No. 14/92 which came to be decided on 14. 5. 92 by this Court. It was held that the articles, though not were taken in possession during the raid, were in the custody of the court and could be disposed of by the Special Court.

(3.) MR. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property seized in the case were not produced during enquiry or trial, and therefore, the property could be disposed of u/s. 457 Cr. P. C. His submission was that it is the duty of the Court to decide the respective claims of the claimants and dispose of the property. Pointing out that this Court has already held in its order dt. 14. 5. 92 that the property, though not seized by the police would be treated to have been seized and their disposal can be ordered by the Court, contended that the learned Special Judge had erred in rejecting the applications of the claimants on 22. 9. 95. In this connection he also pointed out that the order dt. 1. 8. 94 was vague and it did not indicate as to how the property was to be disposed of. He submitted that the Special Judge be directed to decide the claims of the various parties in exercise of power u/s. 457 Cr. P. C.