Urmila Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Antariksha Srivastava, Advocate.

Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

This petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For quashing of the order dated 17.5.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.23A/93-R; whereby

and whereunder the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for release of Locker No.23 maintained at Allahabad Bank, Harmu Colony

Branch, Ranchi, which is operated by the petitioner, has been rejected and also for release of Locker No.23 aforementioned in favour of

the petitioner, now the case is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad being R.C. Case No.23A/93-R, registered u/s

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.â€​

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R was registered against the husband of the petitioner as back as on 30.11.1993 for

alleged disproportionate asset, who was working as Executive Director under Central Coalfields Limited. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the

course of assessing disproportionate asset during the check period, the locker of the petitioner which was standing in the joint name of the petitioner

and her son namely Praveen Kumar Sinha being Locker No.23 maintained at Allahabad Bank, Harmu Housing Colony Branch, Ranchi was seized

and when the charge sheet was submitted neither the locker nor the materials (jewellery) seized from locker were made material exhibit nor the same

were included in calculating the alleged disproportionate asset of the husband of the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner

being a female has been deprived of her right to use the jewellery for no reason and under aforesaid circumstances, no useful purpose will be served

by continuing the seizure of the locker and the jewellery. The learned Senior counsel further submits that if at any time a situation arises for production

of the seized material of the locker, the petitioner is ready to abide by such direction as and when issued by any competent court of law. He also

submits that the seizure list also indicates the weight of the seized materials (jewellery) item wise. He submits that the impugned order to the extent it

relates to aforesaid locker no.23 be set aside. He refers to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283

(Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat) para 11 to 14.

The learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation submits that although it is an admitted fact that the goods/jewellery found in the locker

as well as the locker are not material exhibits and it has been stated at para - 15 of the counter affidavit that the ornament found in the locker have not

been cited as exhibits in the charge sheet. However, in para 17 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that it is a case of disproportionate asset and

there are huge number of ornaments, so it may be considered at the time of appreciation of deposition of witness/witnesses. Learned counsel has also

submitted that in the inventory prepared, which is annexed along with the counter affidavit, neither the accused nor the present petitioner had put their

signature.

Upon this, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the jewellery seized from the locker may be released subject to the condition that

the petitioner, her son as well as her husband will participate and cooperate in preparation of fresh inventory so that none of them may be in position to

dispute the jewellery found in the locker.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly the jewellery as well as the locker (standing in the

name of the petitioner and her son) was seized as back as in the year 1993 and the petitioner has been deprived of using the jewellery. This Court

further finds that it is not in dispute that the jewellery found in the locker as well as the locker are not material exhibit as per the charge sheet. At the

same time, the Central Bureau of Investigation has mentioned in its counter affidavit that it may be used at the time of trial. The C.B.I has made

following statement at para 17 of the counter affidavit:

“17. That with regard to the averments made in para â€" 12 of the petition, it is submitted that since as per memorandum drawn after

operation of the said locker only ornaments has been kept in the locker and it is true that the said ornaments has not been cited in the

charge sheet, but this is a case of disproportionate assets and there are huge number of ornaments, so it may be considered at the time of

appreciation of deposition of witness/witnesses.â€​

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 at

para 11, 12, 13 and 14 as follows:

“11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is

of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such

cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C at the earliest.

For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity

has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.

For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451

Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that

photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is

handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 Cr.P.C to impose any other appropriate condition.

In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its

claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody,

it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be

produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the

investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep

such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can

be followed.â€​

This Court finds that a petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned court below for release of aforesaid Locker No.23 and its jewellery but

the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the documents relating to her property. This Court is of the considered

view that there is no dispute that the locker is in the name of the petitioner and her son and the petitioner has been operating the locker and nobody

else has claimed the jewellery and the locker has remained seized since 1993. In such circumstances, the learned court below was not justified in

refusing to release the jewellery for want of documents relating to the jewellery. Considering the fact that the jewellery and the locker are not material

exhibit before the learned court below and as per the C.B.I, the same may be considered at a later stage of trial, this Court directs that the aforesaid

locker and the jewellery found in the locker be released in favour of the petitioner and her son jointly in presence of her husband (accused) after:

a) A fresh inventory is directed to be prepared giving details of the jewellery upon taking photographs of the jewellery as well as their respective

weight in presence of the petitioner, her son as well as her husband and a Magistrate be deputed by learned court below for the aforesaid purpose.

b) A clear undertaking by way of affidavit be taken from each one of them that they will not dispute that these ornaments were found in the said

locker.

c) A bond should also be furnished by the petitioner and her son that this jewellery will be produced before the learned court below as and when it is

required and directed by the court concerned and the petitioner and her son a will not dispose of the jewellery during the pendency of the case.

d) The learned court below shall also take proper security before release of the jewellery and the locker.

The learned court below is also directed to ensure that all the above formalities should be completed within a period of one month from the date of

communication/production of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.23A/93-R, is hereby set

aside to the extent it relates to the aforesaid locker No.23 in Allahabad Bank, Harmu Colony Branch, Ranchi.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.