Nayan Ch. Dhar vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), rejecting the petitioner's zimma petition, was to be interfered with. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was not directly involved in the commission of the robbery, and the allegation against him was of purchasing some gold biscuits subsequently. The Court noted that an offence under Section 411 of the IPC was not impleaded, and more than 1.5 years had elapsed since the seizure without completion of investigation, with police officials being the prime perpetrators. Citing the Supreme Court's observation in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasized that valuable articles should not be kept in police custody for extended periods. Therefore, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to release the seized articles in favour of the petitioner upon due execution of a bond of Rs. 10 lacs, after taking photographs, preparing a proper inventory, and obtaining the petitioner's signature. The Court found that keeping valuable articles in police station indefinitely was not warranted.

Facts

The petitioner, Nayan Ch. Dhar, owner of M/s. Balaji Gold & Silver Jewellery, challenged an order dated 09.04.2019 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), rejecting his zimma petition. The challenge arose from Dispur P.S. Case No. 363/2019, registered under Section 392 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that on 15.01.2019, three individuals were robbed of 60 gold biscuits by a group including police personnel. During the investigation, 27 gold ornaments weighing 326 grams were seized from the petitioner's jewellery shop. The petitioner claimed these ornaments were purchased through auction from Manappuram Finance Limited on 19.02.2019 and 20.02.2019, with CGST and SGST paid. The seized articles were valued at approximately Rs. 10 lacs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized gold ornaments, allegedly purchased by the petitioner through auction, should be released in his favour pending further investigation, considering the petitioner's claim of bonafide purchase and the prolonged period of investigation. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 451 of the CrPC and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: - The seized jewellery was purchased bonafide through auction from Manappuram Finance Limited on 19.02.2019 and 20.02.2019, with all applicable taxes (CGST and SGST) paid. - The seizure was based on the impression that the ornaments were made from looted gold biscuits, which is incorrect. - Keeping valuable articles in police custody for an extended period is improper and detrimental to his business, citing Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat. Revenue's Arguments: - The seized articles may be required for further investigation as the prime accused and other individuals from Manipur are yet to be arrested. - The seized articles were allegedly made from looted gold biscuits, and thus their release might impede the investigation.