Pramod Jain vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court partially set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge. The Court found that out of the documents filed by respondent No. 2, only two tax invoices were established as valid receipts: one from Rashri Agro Silwani for a Punjab Agrotech Paddy Threshar worth Rs. 2,06,000/-, and another from Gurunanak Agro Industries for a Seed Drill worth Rs. 35,000/-. These two items were prima facie established as belonging to respondent No. 2. The applicant failed to produce any document to show ownership of any seized equipment. Therefore, the Court directed that the Seed Drill and Paddy Threshar be given on interim custody to respondent No. 2 upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000/-. For all other equipment, the application for release on supurdginama was dismissed. The ratio is that in matters of interim custody of seized property, prima facie proof of ownership based on valid documentation, such as tax invoices, is crucial, and unsubstantiated claims or forged documents are insufficient.

Facts

The applicant, Pramod Jain, filed a complaint alleging that respondent No. 2, Lekhram Patel, failed to return Rs. 9,20,639/- and equipment given at his request. The police registered a case and seized articles. Both parties applied for interim custody of the seized items. The JMFC directed the release of agricultural equipment to the applicant, finding respondent No. 2's bills forged. Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision, and the Additional District Judge, by an order dated 08.04.2024, set aside the JMFC's order and directed the release of property in favour of respondent No. 2. The applicant then filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the revisional court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional District Judge erred in setting aside the JMFC's order directing the release of seized agricultural equipment to the applicant, considering the applicant's claim of ownership? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Argument: The applicant contended that he is the owner of the agricultural equipment seized by the police, and therefore, the JMFC's order for release in his favour was correct. He argued that the revisional court's order was erroneous. Respondent's Argument: Respondent No. 2 supported the order passed by the Revisional Court. The respondent submitted copies of receipts as proof of ownership of some of the equipment.