PRIYANKA LAHRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Raipur has affirmed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Raipur rejecting the application for grant of interim custody of the mobile phones seized from the possession of the petitioner herein.

(2.) Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application for interim custody of the mobile phones filed by the petitioner only on the ground that it will be used during the course of the trial whereas investigation has already been completed and it has culminated into charge-sheet for which she is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 384, 507, 120-B, 389 and 201 of IPC and Section 68 of Information Technology Act, 2000. He would also submit that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has also not been considered by learned Judicial Magistrate while rejecting petitioner's application, therefore, it would be expedient to set aside the impugned order and direct for interim custody of the mobile phone in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely justified in rejecting petitioner's application which does not call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.