IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. ^t$? OF 2011 PETETEONER : Single Bench &U-BO VERSUS RESPONDENT P.R. N0......^^.......,, Piesentod fay SW(KL^«t^.W D^d........l.\S.:J.!..---u- •• State Bank of India, Through Pradeep Kumar Nigam, aged about 52 years, S/o Late SK Nigam, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch 1TL, Rampur, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C6) State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balco Nagar, Distt. Korba (CG) ^' PetitiorL under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ^. aqainst the order dated 25^2.2011 passedjn Criminal Revision No. 13/11 by the Seconct Additional Sessjons Judge (FTC). Korba. presided over by Shri MD Jagdalla. imposinq certain conditions while releasing the property on Supurdnama. .y€STe1^ /'/s--^ ;\ j tefSfti 8 %^M^ -2-9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Cr.M.PNo.458/2011 PETITIONER State Bank of India Versus State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.Cl Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the petitioner-Bank. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon29.8.2011) Heard on admission. ../?•' 2. This petition has been Eled by the petitioner being aggrieved by the condition imposed by the revisional Court in its order dated 25.2.2011, aUowing the petitioner's application for interim custody of currency notes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 17.9.2010, the bank of the petitioner was looted by fhe accused persons and in all, total Rs.52,60,000/- were looted by the accused. During the course of investigation, accused- Baburam and Sahabuddin were apprehended and an amount of Rs.46,60,000/- was recovered from them, including fhe weapon of the bank guard ; which was also looted in the incident. As the currency notes were required to be circulated by the bank, an application under S.-A -2- ^ Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. was moved before the Judicial Magista-ate First Class, Korba, for release of the same in interim custody during the trial, which was rejected on 1.2.2011. On revision preferred against the said order, the learned revisional Court ordered for release of the cash of Rs.46,60,000/- in favour of the petitioner-Bank vide order dated 25.2.2011. The order of release has been passed on certain conditions, including a condition that the same shall be produced as and when directed by the Court. 4. It is against imposition of this condition that the petitioner-Bank has come before this Court. y 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank submitted that the currency notes cannot be allowed to be kept wifhout being circulated through bank operation, as it is a huge cash amount and if it is not allowed to be operated and circulated in transactions, it will have far reaching economic consequences. He further submits that while imposing such condition, the Court below ignored that no one has claimed over the property nor the identity of the currency notes is in dispute, therefore, imposition of such a condition of producing currency notes as an when directed by the Court virtually amounts to rejecting the application, as even if interim custody is taken, the bank would not be in a position to put the currency notes in circulation. i, ? -3- (^) 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State submitted that the currency notes are material evidence and it may be needed during trial and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the Court below in imposing such condition because the property is required to be preserved till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 7. Tme it is that under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., if the Court finds that the property is subjected to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks Et necessaiy, order the property to be sold or otherwise disposed of. However, such a course of action is adopted only in exceptional circumstance. The prayer of the petitioner that the condition of producing the seized currency notes as and when directed by the Court ought not to have been imposed, if accepted, would amount to final disposal of the property, which is normally permissible only at the conclusion of the trial. Upon being inquired by this Court, learned counsel for \ the petitioner fairly submitted that out of the two seizure witnesses naniely- Vinod Yadav and Nishu Rathore, one has already been examined and the other is likely to be examined in the month of September, 2011 in view of the trial programme of recording evidence scheduled on 22nd, 23rd 85 24th of September, 2011. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, considering that out of two, one of the seizure witnesses has -4- —p already been examined and one is required to be examined in the month of September, 2011, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 9. The petitioner would be at liberty to apply for deletion of the condition imposed after all the seizure witnesses have been examined. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivasta^ Judge Praveen ,./.