H§GH CQURT OF GHHAT?§3GARH‘ EILA$PUF€ SLMP. NO.5‘3§!2£9£3? PE?lTiGNER Ram: Gupia, aged abaut (35) years. Son of Law shz'i Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Occupat§on Video Gam‘e Parior, Reswent cf Hamalpara, Ware} Ne.24, Shani Mandir fine, TahSii and SiStrict - Rainandgaoh (0.3) ‘ Vasus REsPONDENT State of Chhatiisgarh, ETiTiGN UNDER $ECTE£3N £32 QF THE CODE QF SRiMiNAL PR§$E3URE Aageararace; SM P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr, Advacate wiih $hr§ Shashi Eushan, counsei for the petitioner. Shri G. K Beriwai, Dy. Advocate Genera! for the State. ORA'L QRDER {GZ,@§.20£3?3 SUWL KUWAR SINHA. J. Heard. This petition is directed against ihe order daied 14.12.2006 passed in Criminai Revision No.135l2006 by the Seccnd Additionai sessions &udge, Rainandgaon (C.G.), whereby, 'ihe said Court fejec‘ted the aforesaid revieion and confiimee the aidei daied 2&.1i.2006 passed by the Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (53.9.), who had dismissed an application of ihe petitioner for reieasing the seized properties on Superdnama under Section 45? of the Code of Crimieai Procedure. it is an admitted fact that the petitioner — Rand Gupta was a licensee for running afv’ideo Game Parior. He used t0 pay tax to the Excise Department and was granted iicenee under certain cenditiens for the said parlor. During the course of lnvestigatien of Ci‘ime No.45’ii2006 registered under Sections 3 & 4-A of the Pubiic Gambiing KP. N0. 50/2GO7 ,7 Oi“. ‘ Act, various eSec‘ironicfefectricaS mides beiongmg t0 the petitioner abngwith certain cash amount wem seized from the pos5ession {3f ihe peiitiongr on 219/2006. A seizure memo to this effeci was aiso prepared on ihe said day by the InveSiigaiing Officer) “the copy of which has been produced before this Court. After the seizure‘ an appiication was fzied byeihe petéiiener for re!easing the arkécles and cueency no%es on Supw’dmma before the Magistrate. The Magisirate dismiesed fne appiicetien on the ground rhar these erodes may be required during the course of~evidence; therefore, they snouid not be released to the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the Magistrate, the pationer filed a Criminal Reviston before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court aiso took the simiiar View and dismissed the revision fiied by the petitioner. it is against the said order passed by the Sessions Court; the petitioner has visited this Court with a prayer to reieese the seized articies on Supuro'nama. i have heard iearneoi counsei for the parties at length and have . also perused the records of this case. Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to pass aporopriate orders with regard to e property of criminei tyiei. This provides that the orders shouid be passed by the concerned court for the proper custody pending conoiusion of the enquiry or triai; or to order it to be soid or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks neoessery; and if the property is subject to the speedy and natured decay, to dispose of the same. This power shouid he exercised expeditiously and judiciously as a qtiioir action wiil not render the owner ot the articie to suffer because oi its remaining unused or in some oases by its misappropriation and the Court or the Poiice wouid aiso not be required to keep the artiste in safe custody tili the disposal oi the triai and it the property is a vehicie (though it is not in this case), the quick disposal is necessitated because it is of no use to keep such seized vehiole at the Poiice Station for a tong period as ultimately the long detention wouid render into a junk and the machinery as weil as body parts would be of no use for nobody. in the present case, admittediy, except the money seized, ali other artistes are eieotronior’electricai articies, which would certainty be Cr.M.P. N0. 50/2007 ~ 3\ of no use, if are kept in unused condition without proper maintenance for protecting them from dust etc. They would certainty become useless and uitimateiy, their value wouid be towered dawn and it shalt be of no use either for piosecuticn ot for the defence. Even if the \ , \ property is subjected to confiscation, the best interest of both the parties would be served if it is kept in good and prooer oondition so that it may remain vaiuabie, as it was at the initial stage, and the oarty teceiving it at last, may receive the same in a good comiition. in the facts and circumstances of this case, as tar as electroniclelectrical articles are concerned, l am of the opinion that those articies should be returned back to the petitioner under certain conditions. it is directed that all the seized articies except the currency notes, which are seized according todhe specification mentioned in the seizure memo dated 2/912006, snail be released on Sqourdnama to the petitioner on the foliowing conditions : (i) He shali execute a Supurdnama to the tune of Rs.50,000I/. (ii) He shall not aiienate or transfer the property to anybody else tiii the disposal of the trial. (iii) He shail not create any third party interest on the propertyr (iv) He shall produce the property, as and when directed by the Court during the course of trial (v) He shall produce a soivent surety to the tune of Rs.50,000f-, ensuring compiiance of the conditions of the Supuro’nama executed by the petitioner. The impugned orders passed by the Courts beiow are set aside. The petition stands aiiowed on the aforesaid conditions. 5dr— sUNIL KUMAR SINHA i Judge H \