Criminal Misc. No. M-10912 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10912 of 2011 Date of decision : 24.08.2011 Kala Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka to release 20 Kisan Vikas Patras of value of `10,000/- each to the petitioners after they were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo dated 28.06.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said Kisan Vikas Patras are personal property of the petitioners. They were entitled to encash the same as the same matured on 27.06.2001 for payment. He has relied upon order, Annexure P-2 in support of his contention. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He has submitted that order passed in Criminal Revision No. 1500 of 2004, Annexure P-2 is not applicable to the facts of instant case as petitioners have not moved the trial court under appropriate provisions of law. Criminal Misc. No. M-10912 of 2011 2 According to him, petition has been filed in inherent jurisdiction of this court and is not maintainable as such. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted before this court that certain Kisan Vikas Patras were recovered by the police which are in custody of the court at present. The same are stated to have matured in the year 2001 and thus petitioners are entitled to their custody. On a query being put to learned State counsel whether appropriate application was moved before the concerned court after Kisan Vikas Patras matured on 27.06.2001, no clear answer is forthcoming. The present petition in inherent jurisdiction of this court has been filed almost a decade after the said Kisan Vikas Patras are stated to have matured for payment. It appears that petitioners never moved any appropriate application before the court below after year 2001 and thus I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The order passed in Criminal Revision No. 1500 of 2004, cannot help the case of the petitioners as in the instant case appropriate remedy has not been availed of by the petitioners. In the said case, the revision petition was preferred before this court well in time. However, the instant petition has been moved in inherent jurisdiction after a decade of maturity of the Kisan Vikas Patras. In my considered view the present petition is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. August 24, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE