Pradeep Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):-

“10.1 To set-aside and quash the Impugned Order dated 8th October, 2018 and 12th October 2017, respectively passed by the Special Judge, Bastar in Appeal No. 1/2017 and Respondent respectively.

10.2 Direct the Respondent and Police Station – Koyalibeda to release all the Movable properties mentioned in the Seizure Memo except Naxalite Materials.

10.3 Direct the Respondent and Police Station – Koyalibeda to release the Vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No. MH-35-P-5127 as an interim measure at the earliest in the interest of justice.

10.4 Direct the Respondent to initiate departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer for flagrant violation of rule of law in the matter.

10.5 Pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice, along with cost of the proceedings.”

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is one of the partners of M/s M.G. Patel and Brothers and Partnership Firm and was indulged in business of trading of Tendu Leaves. The Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Co-operative Federation Limited had floated tenders for allotment of various societies for collection and trading of the Tendu Leaves wherein M/s M.G. Patel and Brothers and partnership firm also participated and was granted various societies for the year 2017-2018 vide order dated 28.12.2016 and in this regard agreements were entered into and security money as well as bank guarantee were also given. The partnership firm entered into agreement for societies on 23.01.2017. One Mr. Kashyap Kumar Patel was appointed by the Partnership Firm to supervise the work and on 26.05.2017 after making necessary payments to the respective forest collection centers, while he was moving towards collection centers at Sulangi Road his Innova Car bearing registration No. MH 35 P 5127 was stopped and Rs.27,43,000/- was recovered and preliminary report dated 26.05.2017 was recorded by Border Security Force (BSF). Later on, police investigated the matter and registered FIR No. 14/2017 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 17, 20 & 21 of Chapter IV of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'Act of 1967) against Kashyap Kumar Patel, Yashwant Narayan Ranjari and Ravindra Parvate on the ground that naxalite banner, pamphlet and literature were recovered from the vehicle. Police seized Rs.27,43,000/- at the time of registration of FIR and Rs.50,00,000/-cash from the head office of M/s M.G. Patel and Brothers situated at Samajik Bhawan, Village Bandhe, Rs.1,20,760/- from the office of the petitioner situated at Village Naharpur, Toyota Innova Car No. bearing registration No. MH 35 P 5127 and other naxalite literature. The Investigating Officer conducted search at the office of the petitioner on 27.05.2017 at Village Bandhe and Naharpur and seized Rs.51,20,760/-. On 24.09.2017 charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before Special Court, Jagdalpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 17, 20, 40 & 40 (2) of the Act of 1967 along with Section 21(12)/177, 105/177, 191/177, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner made a representation before the State authorities for releasing the seized property. A writ petition bearing No. W.P.(Cr) No. 374/2017 was filed before the writ Court seeking direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. On 07.10.2017, the representation made by the petitioner was decided. The petitioner was communicated regarding rejection of representation vide letter dated 12.10.2017 by the respondent.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2017, preferred an appeal i.e. Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 1/2017 under Section 25(6) of the Act of 1967 before the Special Judge Bastar which has been dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2018 after affording proper opportunity to the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Investigating Agency has violated the provisions of Section 45 of the Act of 1967, the order has been passed in mechanical manner by the learned Special Judge, according to the letter dated 26.05.2017 issued by BSF, only Rs.27,43,000/- was seized from Innova Car of the petitioner and thereafter, the police has registered a false case and subsequently seized cash worth Rs.78,63,760/-, Innova Car and Laptop of the petitioner. He would further submit that Investigating Agency has not obtained approval from the competent authority, M/s MG Firm has to make payment to the societies and Firm was not involved in any naxalite activities and thus, he would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Court in Misc. Criminal Appeal 1/2017 dated 08.10.2018 and further prayed for release of the seized articles.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner had alternative remedy to prefer criminal revision against the order passed by the learned Special Court. He would further submit that the present petitioner in his memorandum statement has admitted that on 26.05.2017 he was going to hand over Rs.78,63,760/- to CPI Maoist Naxalites and out of the said amount, Rs.51,20,760/- and one Laptop were hidden in community building at Village Bandhe. He would also submit that the police constable Kishore Kumar Uikey has seized cash and naxalite literature from the possession of the present petitioner and other accused persons. He would next content that due process has been complied with in investigation and seizure and the learned Special Court has passed well reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition with utmost circumspection.

On 26.05.2017 FIR No. 14/2017 was registered at Police Station Koyalibeda, Kanker under Sections 17, 20 & 21 of the Act of 1967 against the petitioner and on 27.05.2017 seizure memo as well as arrest memo was prepared. The police seized cash amount of Rs.78,63,760/-, Innova Car, Laptop and naxalite literature from the possession of the petitioner. Representation was made by the petitioner before the State authorities for release of seized articles which was rejected by the authorities on 12.10.2017 and prior to that on 24.09.2017, charge sheet was filed by the police for commission of offence punishable under Sections 17, 20, 40 & 40 (2) of the Act of 1967 along with Sections 21(12)/177, 105/177, 191/177, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner preferred Appeal No. 1/2017 before the Special Court, Bastar for releasing the seized articles which has been dismissed on 08.10.2018.

Section 25 of the Act of 1967 says as under:-

“25. Power of investigating officer and Designated Authority and appeal against order of Designated Authority.– (1) If an officer investigating an offence committed under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of the Police of the State in which such property is situated, or where the investigation is conducted by an officer of the National Investigation Agency, with the prior approval of the Director General of National Investigation Agency, make an order seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the Designated Authority before whom the property seized or attached is produced and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned.

(2) The investigating officer shall duly inform the Designated Authority within forty-eight hours of the seizure or attachment of such property.

(3) The Designated Authority before whom the seized or attached property is produced shall either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued within a period of sixty days from the date of such production:

Provided that an opportunity of making a representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached shall be given.

(4) In the case of immovable property attached by the investigating officer, it shall be deemed to have been produced before the Designated Authority, when the investigating officer notifies his report and places it at the disposal of the Designated Authority.

(5) The investigating officer may seize and detain any cash to which this Chapter applies if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that–-

(a) it is intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism;

or

(b) it forms the whole or part of the resources of a terrorist organisation:

Provided that the case seized under this sub-section by the investigating officer shall be released within a period of forty-eight hours beginning with the time when it is seized unless the matter involving the cash is before the Designated Authority and such Authority passes an order allowing its retention beyond forty-eight hours.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, “cash” means–

(a) coins or notes in any currency;

(b) postal orders;

(c) traveller's cheques;

(ca) credit or debit cards or cards that serve a similar purpose;

(d) banker's drafts; and

(e) such other monetary instruments as the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may specify by an order made in writing.

(6) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Designated Authority may prefer an appeal to the court within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, and the court may either confirm the order of attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke such order and release the property.”

From bare reading of Section 25 of the Act of 1967, it is apparent that if Investigating Officer has reason to believe that some property is being used in any unlawful activities; after prior sanction of the authority prescribed he may seize such property. The vehicle was earlier intercepted by BSF and thereafter certain objectionable articles were seized including naxalite literature and the learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 1/2017 dated 08.10.2018. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their cost.