Criminal Appeal Nos. 923 and 1024 of 2004. Case: Omkarsingh Sajjan Singh Jat and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 923 and 1024 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H.K. Prem, Advocate and For Respondents: P.P. Bhosale, APP |
| Judges | A. M. Thipsay, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 124; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 222, 222(1), 313, 374, 406, 452, 454; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 23, 302, 304, 307, 324, 325, 326, 335, 34, 353, 380, 390, 391, 392, 395, 407, 410, 414 |
| Judgement Date | April 27, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. M. Thipsay, J.
-
These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of one and the same judgment - i.e. judgment and order dated 26th July 2004 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1505/99.
-
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 were the accused Nos. 2 and 10, respectively, in the said case, while the appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 was a witness (P.W.8) therein.
-
The circumstances giving rise to these Appeals and the facts necessary to understand the controversy are as under:--
On 6th July 1994, a dacoity took place and cash of Rs. 12,63,100/- belonging to Killburn Engineering Ltd. (respondent No. 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 and respondent No. 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04) was robbed from the possession of its employees. On the First Information Report lodged by one of the employees, investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, cash of Rs. 7,07,805/- was seized by the police claiming it to be a part of the robbed property. Though the Investigating Agency named 10 persons as the accused, actually only the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 i.e. Omkarsingh Jat (accused No. 2) and Smt. Jarjinder Jat (accused No. 10) were prosecuted, as one of the others died and seven either absconded, or could not be arrested at all. The appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 (original accused Nos. 2 and 10 respectively) are related to each other as husband and wife.
-
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed a charge in respect of offences punishable under sections 120B IPC, 395 IPC, 307 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC and section 353 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC against the appellant No. 1, and a charge of offences punishable under sections 120B of the IPC and 414 of the IPC against the appellant No. 2. Thus, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No. 2') had taken part along with other accused in the actual dacoity, assault etc, and the appellant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No. 10') had conspired with and assisted the accused No. 2 in concealing and/or disposing of the property obtained by the accused No. 2 by committing the dacoity in question.
-
The prosecution examined totally 13 witnesses during the trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons had committed the offences with which they were charged, or any of them. He, however, held that the accused persons had committed an offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (now Maharashtra Police Act). As such, he convicted both of them of the said offence and sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons of all the other offences, including the offence punishable u/s. 414 of the IPC (with which the accused No. 10 was charged).
-
During the trial, consistently with the case of the prosecution, evidence was adduced to show that the accused No. 10 had purchased a row house bearing No. RH/1/L/3 in Sector No. 7, Vashi, from Milind Shringarpure (PW 8) - the appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04. The consideration therefor was Rs. 7,00,000/- which was paid by the accused No. 10 to the said Milind Shringarpure.
-
Apart from challenging the correctness of their conviction as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 are also challenging the order of disposal of the property, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Code). Thus, the said Appeal is a composite appeal under section 374 as well as under section 454 of the Code. Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 is one under section 454 of the Code and the challenge therein is limited only to the order of disposal of the property.
-
It would be proper to reproduce here the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge with respect to the disposal of the property.
(iv) Muddemal property cash amount of Rs. 7,07,805/- be returned to Killburn Engineering Ltd., Mulund. If the said Company is not in existence, the said amount has to be forfeited to the State Government.
(v) Sr. P.I. Bhandup police station is directed to seize and attach the row house RH/1/L/3 in Sector No. 7, Vashi, New Mumbai from whoever may be in possession thereof or even breaking the lock within 30 days from today and report this court accordingly and to hand over the possession of the said row house to PW 8 Milind Shringarpure, Mita Milind Shringarpure and Sushma Vinayak Gupte within one month from the date on which the appeal period is over. Sr. P.I. to act upon the copy of this judgment sent by this Court.
(vi) Other muddemal property and the R&P of this case be preserved for the trial of absconding accused.
Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the cash of Rs. 7,07,805/- seized in the course of investigation to be 'returned' to the Company - Killburn Engineering Limited. As regards the row house which had been purchased by the accused No. 10, the Addl. Sessions Judge directed the possession thereof to be handed over to PW 8 - Milind Shringarpure, his wife Neeta and his mother-in-law Smt. Sushma. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge went to the extent of directing the Sr. Inspector of Police, Bhandup Police Station to seize and attach the row house from 'whoever may be in possession thereof' and 'even breaking the lock'.
-
It is this order for disposal of the property that has been challenged by the present Appeals.
-
The case of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 is simple. According to them, out of the seized cash, an amount of Rs. 6,56,800/- belonged to them and since it was taken charge of by the police from the appellant No. 1, it was the appellant No. 1 who was entitled to receive the same when the offences with which the accused were charged, were not proved. The prayer of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 is that the order directing the disposal of the property, to the extent that it directed return of cash of Rs. 6,56,800/- to Killburn Engineering Co. Ltd., be set aside and that the said cash be handed over to the appellants.
-
The challenge of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 10 is to that part of the order whereby the Sr. Inspector of Bhandup Police Station has been directed to seize and attach the said row house, and hand over the possession thereof to Milind Shringarpure (PW 8) and the other appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04. Of course, the order of conviction of the accused Nos. 2 and 10 in respect of an offence punishable u/s. 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act is also seriously challenged.
-
I have heard Mr. H.K. Prem, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04. I have heard Mr. Raja Thakare, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04. I have heard Mr. R.B. Mokashi, learned counsel for the Company - Killburn Engineering Ltd. - the respondent No. 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 923/04 and respondent No. 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04.
-
Mr. Prem contended that the order of conviction of the appellants and the order regarding the disposal of the property is patently illegal and untenable. He submitted that in the first place, the appellants could not have been convicted of an offence punishable u/s. 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act when they were not charged of, or accused of having committed the said offence. He also submitted that the row house, the possession of which has been ordered to be taken by police for handing it over to Milind Shringarpure (PW 8) (who is the appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04) and others, is patently illegal and absurd, as the row house in question had not at all been seized at any time in the course of investigation. He also contended that since the said row house was not seized in the course of investigation, and no offence had been committed with respect to the row house, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the disposal of the said row house purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred on a Court by section 452 of the Code. He also submitted that the order directing the police to take possession of the said row house by breaking open the lock and by dispossessing whosoever would be in possession is totally illegal, unjust and shocking.
-
Mr. Thakare, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04 also contended that the impugned order is illegal. He submitted that the cash in question i.e. cash of Rs. 6,58,000/- (which forms part of the cash of Rs. 7,07,805/- recovered in the course of investigation) which had been seized from the possession of Milind Shringarpure (appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1024/04) ought to have been returned to Milind Shringarpure only, and it could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial