Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/954/1999 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 954 of 1999
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JITENDRA MALKAN for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR HRIDAY BUCH for Applicant(s) : 1,GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Applicant(s) : 2,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s)
: 1,
MR GULSHAN NASHA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 27/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition is filed by the Union of India and Senior Post Master. They
have challenged the order dated 3.7.96 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad in Criminal Case No.830/96 as upheld by
the Sessions Court on 30th September 1997.
Briefly
stated, facts are that 8 Indira Vikas Patras (IVP for short) bearing
Sr.Nos.762597 to 762604 having total maturity amount of Rs.40,000/-
and other 30 IVPs bearing Sr.Nos.988754 to 988783 having maturity
amount of Rs.1,000/- each totaling an amount of Rs.30,000/- was the
subject matter of a criminal case. The said IVPs were, therefore,
seized by the police and were presented before the learned
Magistrate. Since the IVPs were maturing, the learned Magistrate
by his impugned order dated 3.7.96 handed over the custody thereof to
respondent No.2 and directed that upon presentation with the Postal
Department, the same shall be renewed.
The
Postal Authority had serious objection to such direction for
renewal since according to them, upon maturity of IVPs there was no
provision for renewal of the investment. They, therefore, approached
the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Application. The
revision application was dismissed for default. They, therefore,
filed the present petition.
Unfortunately,
though no stay was granted in favour of the petitioners, the
direction of the learned Magistrate was not carried out and no
reinvestment was made. Amount of Rs.70,000/- upon maturity was not
returned to the original investor for years together. Thus,
Rs.70,000/- upon maturity was not returned to the original investor
for years together and remained with the Postal Department without
any interest thereon.
Learned
counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are
willing to return the said principal amount of Rs.70,000/- as would
have been available to the investor upon maturity. He has brought a
draft for the said amount. He stated that as soon as respondent
No.2 approaches the Postal Authorities with original IVPs, the said
amount will be released in his favour.
In
view of the above stand, two minor issues remain to be tackled.
First is the question of interest from the date of maturity till
today. It is true that the amount was not reinvested. It may also
be that there was no provision for reinvesting the same in IVPs.
However, since the petitioners did not obtain stay against the order
of the Magistrate, they were required to implement the same. There
was no third option available to the petitioner. In any case, the
amount of Rs.70,000/- has remained with them for nearly 15 years.
They cannot escape the liability of payment of reasonable interest
towards such delayed payment.
Second
question is with respect to the availability of the original IVPs
after such a long gap of time. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, the petition is disposed of with following directions:
Amount
of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) shall be returned to
respondent No.2 if he approaches the authorities with original IVPs.
Such payment shall carry simple interest at the rate of 8% from
2.7.95 till today. It is clarified that from today onwards, the
respondent No.2 shall not be entitled to any further interest.
It
is further directed that in case respondent No.2 fails to produce
the original IVPs, the payment shall be released in his favour on
: (a) his establishing his identity and,
(b)
giving an indemnity bond to the petitioners that in case the said
amount is claimed by any other person, he shall return the amount to
the petitioners.
The
petition stands disposed of with the above observations and
directions.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top