SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow, in Case Crime No. 150/2010, under Section 381 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow. It appears that a cash amount of Rs. 6,000/- and certain ornaments were recovered by the police from the possession of the accused who was a maid servant in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the recovered cash amount as well as the ornaments alleging that the same belonged to him. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not affixed any list of the stolen articles either with the FIR nor handed over the same to the police during the investigation. The photocopy of the list annexed with the application for release of the recovered articles was not admissible for want of its original. The learned Magistrate further found that no evidence was adduced except the alleged photocopy of the list of articles in support of the claim. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate rejected the application for release of the recovered articles.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to prove his ownership in regard to the claim of cash amount and the ornaments nor the learned Magistrate held any summary inquiry to find out truth in the claim set up by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material illegality resulting in failure of justice in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Apex Court has settled the legal position in regard to disposal of the case properties, in the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283, therefore, the learned Magistrate was required to consider the matter accordingly. The observations of the Apex Court in paras 11, 12, 13 and 14 are required to be observed as guidelines for disposal of valuable articles and currency notes etc., which are being reproduced as follows:- 11. Valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. 12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:-- (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. 13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. 14.In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed." ;