d!) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCtASH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 172/2006 APPLICANTS Ril" ' :• Ji^^7*^^^^-^^^^ MON- APPLICANT8 Lakhabir Singh, S/o Balbir Smgh, aged about 40 years, occupation service, r/o Bishrampur, P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G). Versus State of Chliattisgafa, through thc District Magistrate, Surguja AmbikapT.tr, Distt. Sui^uja (C.G). PBTITION U/S 482 OF THB CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURB Appearaace: Shri Bhupendra Siagh, coimsel for the applicant. Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy.Govt Advocate, for fhe State. QRALORDER (20.06.2007) SUNIl, KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard fiiiaUy wifh the consent of the parties. (2) Tbis petition is directed ^ainst the order dated 16.10.2006 passed m Criminal Revision No.236/2006, by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Suiguja whereby fhe said Court while disnussiag fhe aforesaid revision luaintained fhe order passed by the M^jstrate on 03.10.2006 ia Crtmiaal Case No.295/2006 (State -vs- Ezaz and others). (3) A perusal of the order wouM show that a Mobfle Set of Motorola Compauy (Model L7) bearmg No.358391000561403 was seized during fhe course of iavestigation of Crixae No.67/2006 registered at Police Station BatauU u/ss.395, 397, 212 & 216 of I.P.C. It was seized Irom the possession of one Nitu Singh @ Raviadra Siugh who is one ofthe accused persons. The petitioner, who is fh.e brofher accused Nitu Singh, claimei^to Gr.M.P. No.172/2006 ? !.i.:l i?i|WS"<;3|ifiOBa be the owner of fhe said Mobiie Set and filed an appUcation for relea^iag offhe said set in his favour u/s 451 Cr.P.C. bedbre the Magistrate. The M^istoate rejected his appUcation, thcrefore, he ffled a cruninal revision aud when the crmunal revision was also disinissed by flie iinpugned order dated 16.10.2006 fhis Crimiaal Misc. Petition has been filed. (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner aSgues fhat it coines ia the rejection order that ttus Mobite Set inay be required during fhe course of evidence, therefore, fhe Courts below have refused to give it to the petitioner. It has also been obsen'ed by the Sessions Court that it was seized fi»mtbe possession of Nitu Siugh @ Raviadra Siugfa aad there was no evidence before thafc Court that the present appUcaat was brofher of Nitu Siugh and on these grounds the petition was rejected. He prays for releasiag fhe said Mobile set ia favoiur of the petitioner. He refers to the document Aiuiexure P-2 which is the cash nieino. It shows that the petitioner has purchased that Mobile frosi a particuJar shop. This prayer is opposed by couusel for fhe State who is present alongwifh the case diaiy. (5) I have heard leanied coiinsel for the pardes at length and have also perused the records of the Misc. Petition as also the contents of ffae case diary. (6) Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to property of a cmninal trial. This provides that the oiders should be p^sed by tbe concerued Court for fhe proper custody penduig conclusion <rf the enquuy or trial; or to oider it to be sold or ofherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it ttunks necessary; aad if fhe property is subject to fhe speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. TIus power should be exercised expeditiously and judiciousty, as a quick action wiil not render the owner of the article to siiffer because of its reiuaming unused or in some cases by its raisappropriation aad the Court or fhe PoUce would also not be required to keep the article ia safe custody tiU fhe Cr.M.P. Mo.172/2006 . ^'ij&;.:i..i'a-J^;f-;i-S'.r/-;-^ ^^^s^^ rf"?:S3Esija&jjt,s^^ ^^ -^^^sg^.®^ Rao disposal of the trial and if the property is a velucle (though it is uot in fttis case), the quick disposal is necessitated because it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the Police station for a long penod as ultunatety the long detention would render into a junk aud the inachineiy as weB as body parts woiild be of no use for uobody. (7) In fhe present case, admlttedly the pfopeity seized is aa electroiuc device and if it is kept in aa idle condition either ia fhe police station or in the Ncsxiral of the Court, It may render useless by inecharucal djsorder due to unsafe keepiag which niost ofteu happens iu such custodics. The petitioner has fUed two affidavits swom by Lakhubir Smgh and Nitu Sin.gh, ia which they have expressed that if fhe aforesaid Mobile set is given to the custody of the petitioner, ttiey Iiave no objection. (8) In view of fhe above, it is directed that the seized Mobile set shaU be handed over to fhe intermi custody of fhe petitioner on fhe foUowine conditions; (i) He shatl execute a Suprudnmna to the tune of Rs.5000/- (ii) He shall not alienate or traasfer fhe property to anybody else tiU disposal ofthe trial. (ii^ He shaU not create aay fhird party iaterest ou the property, (iv) He shatl produce the property as aad when directed by the Court dunag fhe course of trial; (v) He shall produce a solvent siu-ety to fhe tune of Rs.5000/- ensuring coinpliaace offhe conditions of the Suprudnama executed by the pctitioner. The unpugned orders passed by fhe two courts below are set aside. The petition staads aUowed on fhe atbresaid couditious. C.c. as perrules.-—— — —^— SdA SunU Kumar Sinha Judge