SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN  Crl.R.C.No.269 of 2022 R.Jayanthi                                                         … Petitioner Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases Salem.              … Respondent This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 407 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 31.01.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.511 of 2011 in Crime No.4/AC/2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem and allow the revision as prayed for. For Petitioner :  Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for     M/s.A.R.Ganthimathi For Respondent :  Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders reserved on

04.04.2022

 Orders pronounced on

13.04.2022

 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN 

Crl.R.C.No.269 of 2022

R.Jayanthi                                                         … Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases

Salem.              … Respondent

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 407 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 31.01.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.511 of 2011 in Crime No.4/AC/2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem and allow the revision as prayed for.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for

M/s.A.R.Ganthimathi
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Revision case is filed challenging the order passed in

Crl.M.P.No.511 of 2011 in Crime No.4/AC/2021 on the file of the learned

Special Judge (Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem.

  1. M.P.No.511 of 2021 was filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C to return locker key, which were handed over to the Court by the respondent police. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent registered a case against the petitioner and her husband G.Selvakumaran, Executive Engineer, MGNREGS, Rural Development Department, Vridhachalam Division in Crime No.4/AC/2021 for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 r/w. Section 109 IPC.  Petitioner’s mother-in-law was in Government service and retired in 1996.  She accumulated 150 sovereigns of gold and cash during her service and gifted the same to petitioner’s family as per family partition deed dated

10.02.2021.  At the time of petitioner’s marriage, she was gifted 120 sovereigns of gold jewels, and cash as Sridhana.  Her mother and relatives gifted gold articles during festive occasions and during the birth of children. She is an income tax assessee and doing business in mining activities.   A false case has been registered against her and her husband.   She was summoned to UCO Bank on 10.03.2021 at about 5 p.m.   The locker was opened in the presence of bank Manager.  Inventory was taken.   She has been using the locker to safeguard her valuable things.  Her daughter’s marriage arrangement is in progress.  It is necessary for her to wear the jewels as per customs.  Therefore, the petition for seeking return of jewels and locker key.

  1. Respondent filed counter objecting to the return of jewels and handing over the locker key.
  2. The trial Court on considering the rival submissions dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, this petition is filed.
  3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that gold jewels, gold biscuits and cash found in the locker belong to the petitioner and gold jewels, gold biscuits and cash have nothing to do with the criminal case instituted against the petitioner and her husband. Respondent had returned the gold jewels and cash seized from petitioner’s residence.  The gold jewels are required for the purpose of making marriage arrangement to her daughter and therefore, the petition was filed.  Dismissal of this petition is unwarranted in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai ..vs.. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10

SCC 283, wherein it is held as follows:-

“Valuable Articles and Currency Notes

  1. 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 P.C. at the earliest.
  2. 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:-
  • preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles:
  • taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and
  • after taking proper security.
  1. 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.”

and the order passed by this Court in Tmt.Santhi ..vs.. State in Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2015 on 22.05.2017.

  1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation in this case is not completed. Accused were charged with accumulating disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.3,31,79,560/-.  The property seized from the locker are proceeds of crime and liable to be confiscated at the end of trial.  If the properties are returned to the petitioner, there is every possibility that the properties may not be produced or made available during the course of trial or for confiscation to the State in the event of conviction of accused.  Returning the properties would seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution and thus, he prayed for dismissal of this Revision Case.
  2. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
  3. It is seen from the rival submissions that the gold jewels weighing 1,526 grams, silver articles weighing 1,441.7grams and cash of Rs.2,35,000/- found in the residence during search were handed over to the petitioner by the Investigating Officer after entering them in the Mahazar. The properties found in the locker had alone be frozen. The properties found in the locker are:-
  • cash of Rs.8,00,000/-;
  • 16 items of various gold jewels;
  • 5 gold biscuits; and
  • 2 gold ingots; totalling 23 items weighing 1,392 grams.
  1. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this cash amount, gold jewels, gold biscuits and gold ingots are the proceeds of crime and if they are returned to the petitioner, the case of the prosecution would be seriously prejudice. Yet another submission is that the investigation in this case is not completed. If the objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is taken, then it is not known why the gold jewels, silver articles and cash seized from the residence of the petitioner were returned to the petitioner.  If the gold jewels, gold biscuits, gold ingots and cash found in the bank locker are proceeds of crime, there is every possibility that the gold jewels and silver articles and cash seized from the residence of the petitioner could also be proceeds of crime.  It is not known why two different yardsticks applied in this case.  Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, gold jewels can alone be ordered to be returned to the petitioner, on executing a bond and on giving an undertaking that the petitioner will not sell, pledge, change the features of gold jewels and produce the gold jewels as and when required by the Court.
  2. Cash of Rs.8,00,000/- is kept in the bank locker. The value of cash will get diminished due to passage of time.  More importantly, it would not yield any productive income.  Therefore, this Court directs the cash of

Rs.8,00,000/- in the locker to be deposited in an re-investment Fixed Deposit scheme in the crime number of this case and the Fixed Deposit receipt be kept in the safe custody of the Court.  The mode of disposal of deposit amount with accrued interest shall have to be decided by the Court at the end of trial.  So far as the gold biscuits and gold ingots are concerned, petitioner is expected to produce the same at the time of trial and it would be better in the interest of the case that it is kept in the safe locker itself.

  1. Thus, this Court orders the return of gold jewels, viz., items 1 to 16 in the Mahazar to the petitioner after taking necessary photographs at the cost of the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to take steps to prepare necessary panchanama of the gold jewels including the currency notes, take photographs of the jewels, get a bond for the value of the gold jewels – items 1 to 16 as valued by the bank valuer before returning the gold jewels as interim custody.  With the above observations and directions, this

Revision Case is allowed in part by setting aside the order of the learned

Special Judge (Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem, dated 31.01.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.511 of 2011.

  1. In the result,
  • Cash of Rs.8,00,000/- is ordered to be deposited in an reinvestment Fixed Deposit scheme in the crime number of this case and the

Fixed Deposit receipt be kept in the safe custody of the Court.

  • Gold jewels, viz., items 1 to 16 in the Mahazar are ordered to be returned to the petitioner as interim custody, after taking necessary photographs at the cost of the petitioner and on the petitioner executing a bond for the value of the gold jewels – items 1 to 16 as valued by the bank valuer and on the undertaking that the petitioner will not sell, pledge, change the features of gold jewels and produce the gold jewels as and when required by the Court. The trial Court is directed to take steps to prepare necessary panchanama of the gold jewels including the currency notes.
  • As far as gold biscuits and gold ingots are concerned, this

Revision is dismissed.

          13.04.2022

mra

Index   :Yes/No

Internet:Yes

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

To

  1. The Special Judge

Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.

  1. The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases Salem.
  2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court,

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.

mra

      order in Crl.R.C.No.269 of 2022

13.04.2022

You may also like...