Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
, the present petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 451, 457, 482
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ss. 7, 10, 55
Key paragraphs
- Para 380380. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an application dated 13.12.2010 for releasing the wheat on superdari was moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat but the same was dismissed on 23.08.2011. A revision was filed against the abovesaid order before the…
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. *****
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C for releasing 45 bags of wheat on superdari to the petitioner in Criminal Case No.309 of 2011, FIR No.605 dated 05.12.2010 under Sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat. Notice of motion in this case was issued on 23.01.2012. In response to the notice of motion, reply has been filed, which is on record. The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wheat is lying with the police for the last more than one year and seven months and uptill now, it might have damaged but still the same is not being released on superdari. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Crl. Misc. No.M-2114 of 2012 2 Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported as 2003(1) RCR (Criminal)
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an application dated 13.12.2010 for releasing the wheat on superdari was moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat but the same was dismissed on 23.08.2011. A revision was filed against the abovesaid order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat but the same was also dismissed on 16.11.2011. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wheat, in dispute, belongs to the petitioner and no such application for releasing the same on superdari has been moved by the Food Corporation of India. The wheat is a perishable item and as per the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C, the same can be released on superdari subject to imposition of some terms and conditions, which the Court deems fit. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the wheat bags do not belong to the petitioner but belongs to the Food Corporation of India and the petitioner has no right over the wheat bags and hence, the same cannot be released to him on superdari.
Learned counsel further submits that the ownership of the wheat bags is also disputed and unless the ownership is decided, the same cannot be released to the petitioner even on superdari. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the Orders passed by both the Courts below, as well as, the other documents on file. Admittedly, the petitioner moved an application for releasing the wheat bags on superdari before the Courts below. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C read Crl. Misc. No.M-2114 of 2012 3 with Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to release 45 bags of wheat on superdari to the petitioner. The wheat being perishable good, no purpose is going to be fulfilled, if the same is retained in the custody of the police. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C is relevant which is reproduced as under :- “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “property” includes - (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody, (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.” As per provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C reproduced here-in-above, it is clear that in case, any property is produced before the trial Court and that property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the Court may, after recording such evidence as necessary, can dispose of the property, in dispute or even can sell it out. Admittedly, in the present case, the property, in dispute, is wheat bags and much time i.e a period of more than one year and seven months have passed but still the prayer of the petitioner has been declined on the ground that the ownership of wheat bags is disputed.
Operative part
Admittedly, the Crl. Misc. No.M-2114 of 2012 4 Food Corporation of India has not come forward to claim the property and no purpose, whatsoever, would be fulfilled by keeping the said wheat bags in the custody of the police. In view of what has been discussed above and in view of the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat to take immediate action to dispose of the wheat bags or to release the same to the petitioner on superdari subject to imposition of certain terms and conditions which are necessary or any other undertaking, which the Court deem fit within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
08.08.2012 gurpreet (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: , the present petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 451, 457, 482; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — ss. 7, 10, 55.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Aug 2012. The bench was DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.