Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Crl.court When Unable To Decide Title To Case Property Should Direct Parties To Seek Declaration Of Title.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur Vs. State Of U.P. On 22/08/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 12947 OF 2004.
CORAM : Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No.10

Crl. Misc. Application No. 12947 Of 2004

District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Fatehpur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicant.
Vs.
State Of U.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Party.
---
Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.:

This Is An Application For Release Of Amount Of Rs.4 Lacs In Favour Of The Applicant Which Has Been Forfeited By The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T. Court No. 7, Fatehpur In Sessions Trial 351 Of 1998, State Vs. Raghuraj Pal And Others Vide His Judgment Dated 28.8.04.

The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That On 9.2.1998 At 2.20 P.M. A First Information Report Was Lodged By Babu Lal, Cashier, District Co-operative Bank, Bahuwa At Police Station Ghazipur District Fatehpur With This Allegation That On The Aforesaid Date He Himself And One Lakshmi Niwas Pandey, Rakshak Of The Above Bank Had Withdrawn A Sum Of Rs. 4 Lacs From Allahabad Bank And Were Carrying The Money Kept In An Attache To The District Co-operative Bank, Bahuwa. When They Reached Near Shah Ke Bare Pul Two Culprits Fired At Them And Snatched That Attache In Which The Cash Was Kept. The Fires Done By Them Caused Injuries To Babu Lal And Lakshmi Bilas Pandey During The Course Of Commission Of The Robbery. On The Basis Of The Above Report The Police Registered A Case Under Section 394 I.P.C. It Is Alleged That On 14.2.1998 The Police Arrested Accused Raghuraj Pal, Ranjeet Kumar, Raj Kumar Maurya, Ravindra Kumar, Rajendra Prasad And Raj Bahadur And Looted Cash Of Rs.4 Lacs Was Recovered. Thereafter A Charge Sheet Was Submitted Against The Accused Persons. They Were Charged Under Sections 395, 397 And 412 I.P.C. Accused Raghuraj Pal Was Also Charged Under Section 25 Arms Act As A Fire Arm Was Allegedly Recovered From His Possession At The Time Of His Arrest.
It Appears From Perusal Of The Judgment In The Above Trial ( S.T.No. 351 And 352 Of 1998) That All The Above Accused Persons Were Acquitted For Want Of Evidence.

The Accused Had Denied The Story Of The Recovery Of The Amount From Them And Since The Accused Were Being Acquitted Of The Charges, The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Passed An Order For Forfeiture Of The Amount Of Rs.4 Lac In Favour Of The State Government. It Is Against The Above Order Of Forfeiture Of The Amount That The Present Application Has Been Filed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By The District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur.

I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Applicant And The Learned A.G.A. For The State.

It Was Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Applicant That In This Case Money , Which Was Looted On 9.2.1998 Had Been Recovered On 14.2.1998 And It Pertains To The Applicant Bank, And So The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Erroneously Passed An Order For Forfeiting It In Favour Of The State Government. On The Other Hand The Learned A.G.A. Submitted That The Story Of Robbery Was Disbelieved For Want Of Evidence And So The Learned Trial Court Was Justified In Passing Order Of Forfeiture Of The Amount In Favour Of The State Government.

After Perusal Of The Record I Find That Prosecution Witnesses Did Not Corroborate The Prosecution Allegation Against The Accused Persons. Rameshwar Shukla P.W.2 Totally Denied The Incident Of Robbery. Babu Lal, Cashier P.W.3 Has Proved The Incident Of Robbery But He Stated That He Could Not Recognize The Culprits. P.W.1 Lakshmi Bilas Stated That He Was A Guard In The Bank And He Was Also Present At The Time Of Robbery. He Has Also Supported The Incident Of Robbery But He Did Not Identify The Accused Persons. The Witness Ram Ashish P.W. 4 And Constable Chhotey Lal P.W.5 Were Examined To Prove Recovery Of The Amount From The Accused Persons.

The Position In This Way Is That There Was Sufficient Evidence To This Effect That The Incident Of Robbery Had Taken Place. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Could Acquit The Accused Persons For Want Of Sufficient Evidence Against Them, But So Far As The Question Of Disposal Of Money Was Concerned, There Was No Justification For Forfeiting This Amount In Favour Of The State Government. If The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Was Of The View That There Was No Sufficient Material For Passing Suitable Order Regarding Disposal Of The Money, Proper Procedure For Him Was To Direct The Parties To File A Civil Suit In Respect Of The Tittle To The Money And He Should Have Passed An Order That The Person Who Proves The Title To The Amount Shall Be Given The Money And There Was No Justification For Forfeiting This Amount In Favour Of The State Government.

I, Therefore, Allow This Application And Set Aside The Order Passed By The Learned Addl. Sessions Judged, So Far As Forfeiture Of The Amount Of Rs.4 Lacs In Favour Of The State Government Is Concerned. The Applicant May Seek Declaration Of Its Title To The Above Amount In Appropriate Legal Proceedings And If Any Order Is Passed In Its Favour By A Court Of Competent Jurisdiction, The Above Amount Of Rs.4 Lacs Shall Be Given To The Party In Accordance With The Order Of That Court.
The Present Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Is Allowed To This Extent Only.

Go to Navigation