MUNNI BANO (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited submission that the articles seized by the investigation agency have been kept in part of the house of the petitioner which may be vacated and the articles put therein may be kept by the investigation agency at some other place.

(2.) Earlier notice was given to the respondent-prosecution on 3.3.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused in this case is the son of the petitioner and it is true that the articles seized have been kept in the house of the petitioner. However, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is other portion in the house for use and occupation of the petitioner.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution should make its own arrangements for keeping the articles seized during the course of investigation of the criminal case. Even if circumstances so warrants and a temporary arrangement is made for keeping the articles, the investigation agency should thereafter make proper arrangements for custody of the articles. In the instant case, the seized articles have been kept at the house of petitioner, since May 2008. It appears that the prosecution has not made any effort so far for making appropriate arrangements to keep the articles seized in the instant criminal case. As a matter of fact, it is for the safety and in the interest of the prosecution that the articles seized during the course of the investigation of the criminal case should be kept at their own place.