P.S. Rana, J. (Oral) - Present criminal revision petition is filed against the order dated 17.06.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Hamirpur (H.P.) Circuit Court at Barsar in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2014 RBT No.14 of 2014 title Harminder Paul v. State of H.P. and another.
Brief facts of the case:
2. FIR No.92/2013 dated 16.07.2013 was registered against co-accused Sahil Singh and Amit Kumar under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the month of July 2013 currency notes to the tune of Rs. 4,82,85,900/- (Rupees four crore eighty two lac eighty five thousand and nine hundred) recovered from co-accused Sahil Singh from Alto K10 Car. It is further alleged by the prosecution that as per order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur (H.P.) entire currency notes to the tune of Rs. 4,82,85,900/- (Rupees four crore eighty two lac eighty five thousand and nine hundred) were deposited in State Bank of Patiala Mehre Branch District Hamirpur (H.P.). Investigation report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed against co-accused Sahil Singh before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Barsar Distt. Hamirpur (H.P.). Learned Trial Court framed charge against co-accused Sahil Singh under Section 411 IPC on dated 25.10.2013. Thereafter learned Trial Court convicted co-accused Sahil Singh under Section 411 IPC on dated 09.04.2014 and on dated 17.04.2014 sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupee four thousand). Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. Some currency was found fake and currency to the tune of Rs. 4,82,53,400/- (Rupees four crore eighty two lac fifty three thousand and four hundred) was forfeited to the State of Himachal Pradesh by learned Trial Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of confiscation of currency in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh third person namely Harminder Paul s/o Sh. Sunder Lal r/o 20-1 Sarabha Nagar Ludhiana (Punjab) filed appeal under Section 454 Cr.PC relating to forfeiture of currency notes. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur at Circuit Court Barsar on dated 17.06.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by Sh. Harminder Paul and learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order passed by learned Trial Court relating to forfeiture of currency notes. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned First Appellate Court Sh. Harminder Paul filed the present revision petition.
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1 and Court also perused the entire records carefully.
5. Following points arise for determination in the present revision petition:
1) Whether criminal revision petition filed by the revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of criminal revision petition?
2) Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that total currency forfeited in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh was ransom money paid by revisionist to the accused for release of his abducted son Munish Kumar and Him Lal driver and on this ground criminal revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. Fact whether forfeited currency notes were paid by revisionist as ransom money in order to release his son and driver from the custody of accused is a complicated question of fact and same cannot be decided in present revision petition.
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that FIR No.72/2013 dated 14.07.2013 was also filed in Police Station Doraha District Khanna Ludhiana (Punjab) against accused persons along with co-accused Sahil Singh under Sections 364A, 307, 323, 324, 171, 148, 149, 120-B, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC, Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 Section 29/61/85 of NDPS Act and Section 66-A of Information Technology Act and on this ground forfeited currency notes be returned to revisionist namely Harminder Paul being owner of above said currency is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that simply filing of FIR did not prove ownership right upon forfeited currency. Revisionist did not place on record any final judgment announced in FIR No.72 dated 14.07.2013 in order to prove that revisionist is owner of forfeited currency notes. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law.
8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that revisionist is ready to furnish requisite security bond and revisionist will return the forfeited currency notes if directed by the Court and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also decided accordingly. Court is of the opinion that complicated question of fact is involved relating to ownership right of currency notes. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct the revisionist to obtain order from civil Court of law relating to ownership right of currency notes forfeited in case No.130-I-2013/50-II-2013 title State of H.P. v. Sahil Singh in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh decided by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Barsar District Hamirpur (H.P.). Revisionist did not claim currency notes before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Barsar District Hamirpur (H.P.) till conclusion of criminal case before learned Trial Court. Revisionist simply file appeal under Section 454 Cr.PC before learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur (H.P.) for first time.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that in view of rulings reported in 1991 SCC (Crl.) 219 title Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 SC 312 title Suleman Issa v. State of Bombay, 1990 Crl. Law Journal 1347 title Meena Ram v. State of H.P., AIR 1979 SC 1829 title N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 401 title State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Singh, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 706 title Kineshwar Singh v. Hori Lal, 1975 Crl. Law Journal 820 title Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. v. Bhagwanprasad Ramraghubir Pandey and others, 1977 Crl. Law Journal 665 title N. K. Modinkunhi v. K. N. Abdulla, currency notes be released in favour of revisionist is decided accordingly. Court is of the opinion that rulings cited supra by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist are distinguishable from the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforesaid cases currency notes were not relating to alleged ransom money. In the present case it is the plea of revisionist that currency notes were given to accused as ransom money for release of his abducted son Munish Kumar and driver Him Lal. Whether revisionist has paid ransom money for release of his abducted son Munish Kumar and driver Him Lal to accused is a complicated question of fact and same cannot be decided in revision proceedings. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct the revisionist to seek adjudication of his ownership right relating to currency notes from competent civil Court of law or as directed by criminal Court in FIR No.72/2013 dated 14.07.2013 registered in Punjab. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2 (Final Order).
10. In view of findings upon point No.1 above present revision petition is partly allowed. It is held that ownership right of seized currency notes is complicated issue of fact qua ransom money. Revisionist is directed to seek adjudication of his complicated issue of fact relating to ownership right of seized property from competent civil Court of law or as directed by criminal Court in FIR No.72/2013 dated 14.07.2013 registered in Police Station Doraha District Khanna Ludhiana Punjab in accordance with law. Judgment of learned Trial Court affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge modified to this extent only relating to seized currency notes. Files of learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court along with certified copy of the order be sent back forthwith for compliance. Criminal Revision Petition No. 319/2015 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
