1995 (9) TMI 402 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules property of accused, not others, can be seized under Section 82.

The court held that property of an individual who is not the proclaimed person cannot be attached under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the property of an individual who is not the proclaimed person can be attached under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Whether the Police Officer is under an obligation to furnish the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate forthwith as required under Section 25 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978.Detailed Analysis:1. Attachment of Property Under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The primary issue was whether the property of an individual who is not the proclaimed person can be attached under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, mother of the absconder Ashok Soni, contested the seizure of her property. The court examined the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 82 empowers the court to issue a proclamation requiring an offender to appear at a specified place and time. Section 83 allows the court to order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, belonging to the proclaimed person. The court emphasized that the property attached must belong to the accused and not to any other individual. The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially refused to release the properties without holding an enquiry, which was later set aside by the Revisional Court, directing an enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, found that the petitioner was the owner of the seized properties. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again refused to release the properties, misapprehending the facts and law by presuming ownership by Ashok Soni due to his residence in the same house. The court concluded that the property of the petitioner could not be seized for the fault of Ashok Soni, as there was no evidence showing his specific interest in the seized property. This view was supported by precedents like Bisi Bihari v. Emperor and Baleshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar.2. Obligation to Furnish Inventory Under Section 25 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978:The second issue was whether the Police Officer was obligated to furnish the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate forthwith. The seizure occurred in March 1995, and despite repeated directions from the Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Officer-in-charge of Argora Police Station failed to produce the inventory. The court noted that the Police Manual mandates police officials to furnish an inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate without delay. The failure of the Officer-in-charge to comply with this requirement was seen as deliberate negligence. The court referenced a similar case, Umesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., where the officer-in-charge was directed to pay compensation for such negligence. The court criticized the erstwhile Officer-in-charge, Srivastava, for his arbitrary actions and awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner, holding Srivastava personally liable to pay the amount within three months. The court directed the Secretary cum-Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, and the Director General of Police, Bihar, to ensure the payment and to recover the amount from Srivastava if necessary.Conclusion:The court allowed the application, setting aside the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 14.8.1995. It directed the current Officer-in-charge of Argora Police Station to release the seized articles to the petitioner within one week. The court also mandated compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the erstwhile Officer-in-charge, Srivastava, for his illegal and arbitrary actions. Copies of the order were to be sent to the Secretary cum-Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, and the Director General of Police, Bihar, for necessary action.