25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3919/2010 DIRECTORATEOF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Petitioner Through l^r.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate versus SURINDERSINGH &ANR, Respondents Through None CORAIVI: HON'BLE |V|S. JUSTICE HIIVIA KOHLI ORDER % 20.12.2010 The present petition is filed by the petitionerpraying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned ACMM in case arising out of CC No. 49/1/95 entitled"DRI Vs. Trilochan Singh". Counsel for the petitionerstates that an applicationwas filed by the Departmentunder Section451 Cr.PC on 12.3.2010,which came to be dismissed in Umini by the impugned order, in the absence of the counsel. Though a copy of the application has not been placed on record, it is submittedthat the said applicationwas filed for disposalof case property, but the learned ACMM dismissed the same on the CRLM.C. 3919/2010 Page No.l of 3 Signing Date:05.08.2024 16:58:50 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ground that the case property may be requiredduring the examination of witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneousinasmuch as the case propertywould no longer be required during the examination of the witnesses as It has already been exhibited and the seizing officer has been cross-examinedduring the pre charge trial. The case property in the present case is 20 gold biscuits,17 silverbars weighing 17 kgs., 153 grams of silvergranules, 3.650 kgs.of silver granules and one Maruti Car. It is orally submitted by him that the aforesaid applicationcame to be dismissedon the first call when the counsel was not presentand he was not accommodatedfor a pass over. Pertinently,the petition has been filed by the Departmentafter a gap of seven months from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 20.3.2010,with no explanationoffered for the delay. Learned counsel orally submitsthat the delay was on account of administrativereasons, for obtaining clearances for filing the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner states that the mater is listed for arguments on charge on 18.1.2011. CRL.M.C. 3919/2010 PageNo.2of3 Consideringtine explanationoffered, which is, to say the least, very sketchy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.PC by interfering with the impugned order. However, having regard to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the learnedACMM after argumentson charge are addressed,for seekinga similar relief as prayed for in the earlier application, the present petition is disposed of, with leave granted, as prayed for. Needless to state this order shall not be treated as a reflection on the merits of the case and the trial court shall be at liberty to decide such an application,if filed by the petitioner,as per law. HIMA KOHLI,J DECEMBER 20, 2010 mk CRL.M.C. 3919/2010 Page No.3 of 3