State of M.P. vs Motilal

Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.—This appeal is directed against an order dated. 18/04/2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 1448/2008 (Motilal Vs. State & others) by which the learned Single Judge directed to the appellant to return back the silver seized from the petitioner or in the alternative, the value of the seized silver as on the date be returned back to the respondent within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Facts of the case are that the Police Head Constable namely Loknath Dwivedi seized 29.851 kg. of silver from possession of the respondent Motilal. The allegations were made against the respondent and some other persons that it was a metal of theft and respondent had converted the stolen property into the silver bricks. However, after investigation an offence under Sections 379, 411, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and challan was filed. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa found that the respondent was not guilty for any offence, he was acquitted and the property seized from the respondent, was directed to release in favour of the respondent.

In the final order dated 10/07/2006, the Judicial Magistrate also recorded findings that the respondent was the owner of silver seized from him and he was entitled to get back the same. When the silver was not returned back, he approached to the writ Court.

A reply was filed on behalf of the appellant that the silver was seized by one Loknath Head Constable, but Loknath after his transfer had handed over the silver to another one Head Constable Ramayan Pratap Singh. But Ramayan Pratap Singh had not deposited the property to the competent authority, as a result of this a criminal case u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered against Ramayan Pratap Singh. As the aforesaid criminal case was registered against Ramayan Pratap Singh, it was stated before the writ Court that the respondent was not entitled to get the seized property from the State.

Learned Single Judge found that Loknath as an employee of the appellant-State, who was vested with the police power and was working as Head Constable, seized the property on behalf of the State and it was in custody of the State. The Single Judge also found that the respondent was entitled to return of the property or its value as on the date.

This order has been assailed by the appellant. It was submitted that the property was handed over to Ramayan Pratap Singh, who has misappropriated it, so the writ Court could not have directed to return the property. It was the duty of concerned employee so the respondent ought to have filed a civil suit for return of the property or for its value. But we are not convinced with the aforesaid argument raised by learned Dy. Advocate General. The property was seized on behalf of the State by its employee and property was mis-appropriated by its employee. The State is liable to return the property, after the decision of the case. It was the duty of the appellant to keep the property in safe custody and to preserve it, till the decision of the case. If the property was misappropriated after seizer, State is liable for return of the property. [See: Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and Another, . In this case, the property was with Loknath and Ramayan Pratap Singh, it was seized on behalf of the State and when the order of acquittal was passed, State was liable to return the aforesaid property. Normally, after seizer of the property, it should have been sent to the treasury through the Court. Neither Loknath nor Ramayan Pratap Singh was entitled to retain with them. The concerned In-charge of the police station ought to have looked into the matter, so that the property must have deposited in the Court or be sent to the treasury for its safe custody, but it appears that neither the Head Constable, who had seized the property nor concerned Station House Officer discharged their duty properly and the property was misappropriated at the police station.

In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Single Judge rightly directed to return the seized property or its value as on date. We do not find any error in the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is found without merits and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.