CRLP/8286/2013 of Yerukula Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.c seekingquashing of the investigation in Crime No. 389 of 2013 of Panjagutta PoliceStation, Hyderabad, which was registered for the offence punishable underSection 102 Cr.P.C.

The allegations in the report would disclose that on 31.05.2013 at15.00 hrs the police stopped the petitioners who were moving undersuspicious circumstances. On questioning, they revealed that they arecarrying gold ornaments weighing about 6.500 grams. As no documents withregard to ownership of the goods are produced and they were brought to thepolice station. On enquiry, they stated that they are carrying the goldornaments for selling the same to a jeweler in Ameerpet area. They furtherstated that the owner by name Harish Chand, Prop. of GhanshyamdasJewellery at Abids, Hyderabad is having original documents. In the presenceof two Panchas, the above gold ornaments worth of Rs.1,50,00,000/- wereseized. Basing on the said seizure, a case in Cr.No.389 of 2013 came to beregistered for the offence punishable under Section 102 Cr.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the State. On instructions, the learned PublicProsecutor submits that there is no alteration of section of law.

A perusal of the material available on record would disclose therespondent herein who is the owner of the property filed Crl.P.M.P.No.1227 of2013 seeking return of gold ornaments. By an order dated 13.06.2013, thesaid application was allowed and interim custody of all gold ornaments weredirected to be released in favour of the respondent herein subject toexecution of a personal bond for Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fiftylakhs only) by producing the solvency certificate issued by the competentauthority in favour of the respondent.

Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No. 250of 2013 seeking modification of the above said order and the said applicationwas dismissed on 12.07.2013 by the learned III Additional MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Section 102 Cr.P.C.:

102. Power of police officer to seize certain property : (1) Anypolice officer may seize any property which may be alleged orsuspected to have been stolen, or which may be found undercircumstances which create suspicion of the commission of anyoffence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge ofpolice station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shallforthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction andwhere the property seized is such that it cannot be convenientlytransported to the Court or whether there is difficulty in securing properaccommodation for the custody of such property, or where thecontinued retention of the property in police custody may not beconsidered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may givecustody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking toproduce the property before the Court as and when required and to giveeffect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.

Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1)is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to thepossession of such property is unknown or absent and the value ofsuch property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be soldby auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and theprovisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may bepracticable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

A reading of the said proviso would indicate that it is not penal innature. It only refers the procedure to be followed by the police officer forseizing any property which may be alleged or suspended to have beenstolen, or which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion ofcommission of an offence. In view of the representation made by theAdditional Public Prosecutor that there was no alternation of FIR making the

offence culpable in nature, the petitioner/accused can not be made liable forany penal offences.

Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that there wasany alteration of Section of law in the FIR, and as there is no dispute withregard to the ownership of the property seized in the said crime, I am of theview that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be anabuse of process of law.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for theaforesaid reasons, the criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneousapplications, if any, shall stand closed.

Date: 31.12.2013gvl

-----------------------------------C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

gvl

Crl.P.No.8286 of 2013

Date: 31.12.2013