Amarjeet Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

The instant petition u/s 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 286/2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G) whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 14.06.2023 has been upheld passed in MJC No. 05/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg wherein the application under Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that Patliputra Logistics Private Limited, is a company engaged in works of Storage, Transportation and Distribution and works a Service Provider. Instakart Services Private Limited, is a company Registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is a Supply Chain Company which is involved in Storage and Transportation of goods. Flipkart has an agreement with a company namely Instakart for delivery of products to its customers and in turn the Instakart has an agreement with Patliputra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. for the delivery of products to the customers of Flipkart. As per the agreement if a person buys a product from Flipkart, the product is handed over to Instakart for delivery and Instakart handover the product to Patliputra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. In order to facilitate the business, Flipkart gives option of Cash on Delivery wherein the buyer makes the payment after the delivery of good. One Amar Mandal was posted as Office In-Charge, Arvind Kumar Verma employed as Delivery Boy and Devendra Devangan was employed to look after the stocks of the Dhamdha Office of the Company. Amar Mandal and Arvind Kumar Verma had taken 115 parcels for delivery from the office on 21.05.2023, however, they have not submit the cash collected in the office after the delivery of the aforesaid product/parcels and thereafter the accused persons were not reachable and they had misappropriated the 115 parcels, which included phones, laptop etc. all the products were booked with cash on delivery payment option. The accused persons have used fake addresses and name for the purpose of booking and lured their relatives, acquaintance, and other such persons to give their mobile numbers for the purpose of ordering the product on flipkart and getting One-time-password at the time of delivery of the product. The One-time-password was entered at the time of delivery of the product, and all the products were in the custody of the accused persons only who have fraudulently misappropriated the aforesaid parcels. A complaint was filed before the P.S- Dhamdha and FIR bearing Crime No. 86/2023 was registered against Amar Mandal and Arvind Kumar Verma. During the course of investigation, all the 115 articles were seized by the police from the accused persons and the same has become a part of the chargesheet. The total value of the products/articles seized is about 45-46 lakhs.

Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of the articles which were seized by the police during investigation, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in MJC No. 05/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit the documents related to the ownership of the articles and there is also no document related to the transaction between the Company and Instakart. Against the order dated 14.06.2023 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Revisional Court which also has been dismissed on the ground that the ownership of the articles has not been proved. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional court have erred in recording that the petitioner or Instakart have failed to demonstrate their ownership over seized articles. He would next contend that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the seller has already received the sale amount and the goods were in transit when stolen, the last person in possession is entitled for the receiving the seized articles on supurdnama. He would next contend that it is not in dispute that the accused were the employees of the Company Patliputra Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and it was from them that the articles were seized. He would next contend that as per clause 5.1 (Scope of Work) of the agreement between the Company Patliputra Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Instakart it is clear that the Company has to bear the losses. He would next contend that the Company has already paid the damages to the Instakart and hence, the Company is entitled to the custody of articles. He would next contend that the seized articles are valuable articles including mobile phones and laptops and its misappropriation cannot be denied and therefore the Learned Trial Court ought to release the seized articles at the earliest. He would place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290 and would submit that the articles seized in any criminal case are not to be kept for long time at Police Station and in any case for not more than 15 days to one month and the owner of the article should not suffer because of its remaining unused or misappropriated at Police Station.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would admit the fact that the amount has been deposited.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

Perusal of the documents would show and the submissions made by both the parties that the entire sale consideration/amount in relation to the seized articles has already been deposited in the account concerned, and therefore no financial prejudice would be caused to any party by release of the articles in favour of the petitioner. Once the amount stands duly remitted and acknowledged, the petitioner’s entitlement over the goods cannot be doubted. The record further reflects that the petitioner had already paid the requisite charges and losses to the concerned company as per the internal arrangement, and thus the liability relating to the seized goods stands discharged, leaving no surviving claim to deny custody to the petitioner.

The seized articles are valuable items, such as mobile phones and laptops, and their continuous lying in the police station exposes them to deterioration and misuse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290 has mandated that seized property should not remain in police custody for long and must ordinarily be released to the rightful claimant at the earliest.

In view of the above factual and legal position, this Court finds no justification for continued retention of the articles. The petitioner has established claim and has also complied with the monetary obligations arising out of the transaction.

In the result, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and Revisional Court are set aside. The seized articles shall be released to the petitioner on proper supurdnama, subject to usual conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court to ensure production of the articles as and when directed by the trial Court, or in the alternative, shall produce an amount equivalent to the value of the articles, in the event their production becomes necessary during the course of trial.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.