IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Criminal hflisc. Petition No. .^\0 OF200TO PETITIONER -^l..<'^ ^S^P^. ..-•<"^{^^-^ .'•^•''rf..:.'%' <^- '^*-'" ^ ^. ^ ^^er Versus Kanti Bhai Patel, aged about 40 Years, S/o. Karam Singh Bhai, R/o. Doulat Nagar Road No.6, Kodiyar Apartment Flat No. 501 Boriwali, East Mumbai- 400068 (Maharashtra) RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, District Magistrate Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE »»»f-^ ./ £', HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P. No.705/2010 Kanti Bhai Pafel Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.t Appearance: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 15.09.2010) Heard. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 10th August, 2010 passed by,9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 159/2010, by which order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class rejecting petitioner application for interim custody of seized article/diamonds, has been confirmed. 3. Learned coynsel for the petidoner submits that the seized diamonds were handed over to accused Md. Aslam for being sold in the open market by the petitioner. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized diaraonds were given to the petitioner and Md. Aslam by one Batuk Bhai, owner of Bhavin Diamonds for sale on commission f - '^ '^sf ^•^ -2- basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petidoner submitted an application under Secdon 451of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of seized diamonds on the basis of bill dated 1.6.2009 along with delivery chalan. He submits that the trial Court, ignoring the document of title, has rejected the application and has directed the same to be kept in the safe custody in a locker. He submits that the owner of the seized diamonds had handed over the diamonds to the petitioner for sale on commission basis and therefore he is entitled to interim custody of the same by iinposing appropriate conditions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the diamonds were seized froin accused - Md. Aslam and even after notice served upon him under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., he failed to produce any docuinent relating to ownership of the same. Learned counsel for the State further submits that if the case of the petitioner is to be accepted, he is only a commission agent and, therefore, taking into consideration the nature of seized article, in view of the allegation levelled by the prosecution, it would not be appropriate to handover the seized ardcle- diamonds to the petidoner particularly when the owner has not moved any application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Case of the prosecution appears to be that the diamonds were seized from one Md. Aslam. He failed to produce any docuinent of ownership. The petitioner claims interim custody by stating fhat he is the coinmission agent of one Batuk Bhai, proprietor of Bhavin Diamonds. The bills, which have been placed on record and on the basis of which ;issiSBfe.. -3- Praveen the petitioner claims ownership of the diamonds, are printed bills used for payment of labour in the matter of fmishing of the diamonds. 7. Taking into consideration that the seized article has been directed to be kept in safe custody by the learned trial Court and that the owner has not moved any application for interim custody, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in rejecting petitioner's application under Section 451 ofthe Cr.P.C. 8. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is liable to be and is accordingly disinissed. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge