Sunil Kumar Bhartia v. The State of Jharkhand and another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1164 of 2022 Sunil Kumar Bhartia Versus The State of Jharkhand and another ..... … Petitioner …. …. Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP For the Petitioner For the State -------- 05/10.08.2023 This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st Class, Sahebganj in Misc. Criminal
Legal Reasoning
Application No. 256 of 2022 arising out of Sahebganj Town PS Case No.108 of 2018, corresponding to S.T. Case No.236 of 2018 whereby the learned Judge had dismissed the petition of the petitioner for releasing the seized article which belonged to him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the informant in case crime no. 108 of 2017, the FIR which was lodged by him against Rani Kumari, daughter of late Binod Sahu for the offence under sections 381, 382, 411 and 120B of IPC. During investigation, all the stolen cash Rs.35 lac and the jewellery worth Rs.30 lac was recovered. The seizure memo of the same is on record. The cash amount and jewellery belongs to the petitioner. In this case, charge-sheet has also been filed. 3. The petitioner had moved the release application before the trial court for release of the cash amount and jewellery as well. The same has been rejected by the court below on the ground that the cash currency and the jewellery both were required in prosecution evidence. This impugned order passed by the court below is against the provisions of law as the currency notes and jewellery both belonged to the appellant the same should have been released in his favour. So far as requirement of the same during trial is concerned, the undertaking might have been taken from the petitioner and if the currency notes and jewellery were not released in his favour the same could not be utilized by the petitioner of which he is the owner. 4. The learned APP on behalf of the State has opposed the
Legal Reasoning
contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that 2 Cr. Rev. No.1164 of 2022 the currency notes and the jewellery both are the case property and same required during trial. The order passed by the court below needs no interference. 5. The prosecution case as per FIR is that the informant Sunil Kumar Bhatia had given a written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 28.12.2017 his official had given to him the cash amount of the sale proceeds from petrol pump and cement as well. The amount of Rs.30 lac in cash and jewellery of gold and diamond worth Rs. 30 lac were kept in gordrej alimirah. His maid Rani Kumari, daughter of late Binod Sahu had been working at his house for last one year and usually she used to go to his house in the evening and whenever needed she used to stay at his house. On 28.12.2017 she took the key of alimirah which was kept under the pillow and she stole the amount of Rs. 6 lac. This theft came into light on the message which came on mobile phone of the maid and on queries she confessed that she had stolen the amount of Rs. 6 lac. The one lac rupee was deposited by her in the bank account then the rest of the rupees five lac was assured by her to give back. On 28.12.2017 she gave the Amla Juice to the informant and his wife as well; whereby he and his wife both slept and maid also stayed at the house and next morning she was found missing and found that the further Rs.30 lac in cash and jewellery of Rs.30 lac was also stolen from the house of the complainant. 6. In this case, the investigation was conducted by the IO and charge-sheet was filed against the accused Rani Kumari, Pinki Devi, Raju Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Md. Fayaz for the offence under sections 381, 328, 411 and 120 B of IPC. 7. During investigation, the total amount of Rs.35 lac in cash as the Rs.5 lac was of the first theft and Rs.30 lac was the second theft committed by the accused Rani Kumari was recovered. The seizure memo of the same was prepared in the regard to the recovered jewellery worth Rs. 30 lac and the cash amount Rs.35 lac which is annexure no.3 of this petition. It was recovered from the double storey house of Suresh Kumar situated in village Sandalpur PS Bahadurpur, District Patna. Suresh Kumar is the accused no.3 in the charge-sheet. 8. Thereafter this recovered jewellery and the cash amount was 3 Cr. Rev. No.1164 of 2022 also identified during test identification parade and the same was of the informant. Annexure no.4 is the documents pertaining to TIP of the recovered jewellery and currency notes as well. 9. The Court below while disposing of the application for release of the currency notes and jewellery had called for the report from the police station concerned which is annexure no.5 of this petition and in this police report dated 09.09.2022 the cash amount of Rs.35 lac and the jewellery were stated to be kept in custody of the police and it is also stated that the recovered articles were also identified by informant and his wife and the queries was made from the office of Income Tax Department as well. After completing the enquiry, it was informed that this jewellery and the cash could be released in favour of the informant Sunil Kumar Bhatia. 10. Annexure nos.6 and 6/1 are the official correspondence made from the office of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department office of Assistant Directorate of Income Tax Investigation, DDIT/ADIT investigation Dhanbad in which it has been intimated to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj that the cash of the theft amount Rs.35 lac could be released to the assessee Sunil Kumar Bhatia. 11. The learned court below has rejected the release application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the jewellery, currency notes and property were required during the trial. This finding given by the court below is not correct reason being that the currency notes and jewellery if kept in the police station concerned, the currency notes could not in circulation and the complainant would be deprived of the use of his own currency notes and the jewellery as well. 12. So far as the release of currency notes and jewellery are concerned the photograph of the all the currency notes worth Rs. 35 lac could have been taken so as to ascertain the numbers of the currency notes and keeping the photo copy of the currency notes on record, the original may be handed over to the petitioner. So far as the jewellery is concerned the inventory of the same could have been prepared and on the basis of inventory in which the weight and number of the articles could have been mentioned and even photograph of the jewellery could have been taken, thereafter the same could have been released. 4 Cr. Rev. No.1164 of 2022 13. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujrat, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, with regard to release of property, the impugned order passed by the court below bears illegality and the same needs interference. 14. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order passed by the court below is set-aside. 15. This matter is remitted back to the court below to dispose of the release application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the finding recorded by this Court and also in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai” (supra). 16.
Decision
Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)