Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dholpur, has erred in not allowing the application under Section

457 Cr.P.C. for handing over in Supurdagi the cash recovered from the petitioner's house which the petitioner claimed as his own. It is submitted that

the amount recovered were seized from the cupboard of the petitioner's room in his own house will be treated as his own property and accordingly, it

is required to be released to the petitioner.

Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.B Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4165/2020: Narendra Kumar Harsh Versus State

of Rajasthan decided on 04.11.2020 whereby this Court after considering the law relating to release of cash amount recovered in any case has

directed as under:-

I have considered the submissions.

In MECTEC Firm Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) delivered by me, I had considered the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & ors. (supra)

wherein the Supreme Court has observed with regard to release of valuable articles and currency notes as under:

With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or sliver 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.

For this purposes, 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 panchanama 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.

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 or 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.

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

SIIO 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.

After taking into consideration the said provisions, it was directed as under:

Keeping in view above, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 03/09/2019, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Criminal Misc. Application No.44/2019 is set aside and it is directed that the aforesaid cash amount of Rs.1,69,00,000/-

be released after preparing a detailed and appropriate Panchnama of the cash amount with due photographs of the amount mentioning all the

particulars of the concerned currency notes as well as details of the Proprietor/power of attorney holder of the petitioner firm. Due attestation and

counter signatures of the complainant, accused as well as the person to whom the custody of the currency notes is handed over be also taken on the

photographs. A surety with a personal bond of the Proprietor of the petitioner firm shall be taken for making available the cash amount as and when

required by the learned trial court.

In Mahendra Kumar Todi Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Coordinate Bench has also passed orders as under:

Admittedly, no one has moved an application claiming the amount, it is only petitioner who has moved an application for obtaining the custody of

the currency. There is no justification for withholding the amount which is to the tune of more than Rs.80 lac.

Hence, the criminal misc. petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.

It is with pain that this court notices that in spite of law having settled by this court, the Subordinate Courts fail to take notice of the judgments and

without applying law in its correct perspective proceed to reject the applications mechanically resulting in unnecessary burden on this court. It is not

necessary that this court should lay down law in each case time and again. Once on any question, the law has attained finality, the same is required to

be followed strictly by the Subordinate Courts and the Subordinate Courts are required to lessen the litigation and dispose of the matters accordingly.

However, it appears that an attitude has developed not to decide the matters by following the judgments of the courts and leave it for the High Court

to decide the matters again and again on the same issue. Such approach is deprecated.

Keeping in view the above judgments, the present petition is allowed with the directions that currency amount recovered shall be released to the

petitioner after preparing a ""Panchnama"" and photographs as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & ors. (supra).

It is further directed that the petitioner shall submit a solvent security to the effect that if ultimately amount is not found to be of its ownership then the

same shall be returned and deposited back to the trial court.

Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to the District Courts.

I have considered the submissions as above.

This Court is satisfied that if amount is recovered from the personal possession of an individual, who claims it to be his own property, the cash must be

released in his favour. Personal possession would also include the property being found in the personal room of the personal house of the concerned

person. In view thereof, the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- is directed to be released in supurdagi to the petitioner after preparing of panchnama and

photographs as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 28.3 It is

further directed that the petitioner shall submit a solvent security to the effect that if ultimately the said amount is not found to be of his ownership,

then the same shall be returned and deposited back to the trial Court.

With the observations and directions aforesaid, the present criminal misc. petition is disposed of.