ORDER
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Informant is the petitioner before this Court challenging the order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Jharsuguda in G.R. Case No. 1084 of 2002 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of certain gold ornaments as well as cash under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the authorised agent of M/s. Rohit Jewellers, Mumbat dealing with manufacturing and sale of gold ornaments. In view of orders received from different jewellers the same were being supplied through the present petitioner. On the date of occurrence the petitioner being deputed by said M/s. Rohit Jewellers to supply ornaments to different jewellers in Orissa was moving from Jharsuguda to Bargarh in a bus. It is alleged that the accused persons on false pretext took him in a motor cycle with intention to commit robbery, as a result of which the petitioner raised hullah. Hearing his shout police rescued him and recovered gold ornaments as well as cash which had been taken away by the accused persons and seized the same. On the basis of such allegation, a case was registered. The petitioner field an application under Section 457, Cr.P.C. stating that as he was the custodian in possession of the seized gold ornaments as well as cash belonging to his employer M/s. Rohit Jewellers and after seizure the same are in custody of Jharsuguda police. A prayer was made for release of the gold ornaments as well as cash in his favour. Objection was field by the A.P.P. stating that the said articles were seized from the accused persons while they were running away snatching from the petitioner and there being no document to show that he is the authorised agent of M/s. Rohit Jewellers or that he was carrying the ornaments and cash for supplying the same to different jewellers on behalf of M/s. Rohit Jewellers, articles seized should not be released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate in the impugned order rejected the petition by disbelieving the authorization letter which was produced before the Court at a later stage.
3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no dispute that the ornaments were snatched away from the petitioner by the accused persons and they were caught by the police and the petitioner was rescued. Therefore, at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in possession of the said ornaments. According to Sri Mishra even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate that the authorisation certificate issued by M/s. Rohit Jewellers in favour of the petitioner is not accepted, the articles having been seized from the accused persons who had snatched the same from the petitioner, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner was in possession of the said articles at the time of commission of the offence. Since this is admitted case of the prosecution , there is no reason for the learned Magistrate to reject the prayer.
4. From the prosecution case itself it appears that the gold ornaments and cash which were being carried by the petitioner had been snatched away by the persons and the same were recovered from the accused persons immediately after the occurrence and therefore there cannot be any dispute about the fact that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in possession of gold ornaments as well as cash. Now the question that arises for consideration as to whether the same should be released in favour of the petitioner or not. In the case of Sunderbhai Amabala Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 : (AIR 2003 SC 638). The Apex Court while dealing with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of valuable articles and currency notes observed as follows :
“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. 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, the seized articles be handed over to the complainant after :–
1. Preparing detailed proper panchanama 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 fallow 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 the bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchanama 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 over 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 purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.”
5. In view of what has been decided by the Apex Court in the above case, there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to reject the prayer of the petitioner. I, therefore set aside the order and direct the learned Magistrate to release the seized articles as well as cash in favour of the petitioner after observing the formalities laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case which are also quoted above.
The revision is accordingly allowed.