9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's orders under Section 451, Cr.P.C. 2. Proper custody of the seized properties pending trial. 3. Identification and ownership of the seized machinery. 4. Compliance with the High Court's winding-up order and the role of the Official Liquidator. 5. Validity of the search and seizure operations conducted by the police and PICUP. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Orders under Section 451, Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Ghaziabad issued orders on 20-12-1999 and 6-1-2000 directing the release of seized machinery to M/s. Keshav Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (KE (P.) Ltd.) through its authorized representative, Amrik Singh. These orders were challenged by PICUP, arguing that the CJM exceeded his jurisdiction, especially since the High Court had already directed the Official Liquidator to take possession of the assets of M/s. Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. (SSI Ltd.) under Section 456(2) of the Companies Act. The High Court found that the CJM's orders were not interlocutory and thus were revisable under Section 401, Cr.P.C. The CJM's decision to give custody of the seized assets to KE (P.) Ltd. was deemed an overreach of his jurisdiction, particularly in light of the High Court's prior orders. 2. Proper Custody of the Seized Properties Pending Trial The High Court emphasized that the CJM was responsible for ensuring the proper custody of the seized properties pending the conclusion of the trial. The CJM's decision to hand over the machinery to KE (P.) Ltd. was found to be erroneous because it did not adequately consider the complexities of the case, including the allegations of illegal removal and misappropriation of the machinery. The High Court directed that the assets of SSI Ltd. should remain with the Official Liquidator, while the assets of MRG Plastic Technology Ltd. (MRG (P.) Ltd.) should be given to PICUP. The remaining assets seized at Mohali and brought to Ghaziabad were to be given to KE (P.) Ltd. for safekeeping, subject to the execution of a bond. 3. Identification and Ownership of the Seized Machinery The High Court found that the CJM had erred in concluding that KE (P.) Ltd. had produced sufficient documents to prove ownership of the seized machinery. The machinery was hypothecated to PICUP by SSI Ltd. and MRG (P.) Ltd., and there were substantial documents, including deeds of hypothecation and import bills, to support PICUP's claim. The High Court directed that the properties be identified based on these documents and inventories prepared by the police and the Official Liquidator. 4. Compliance with the High Court's Winding-Up Order and the Role of the Official Liquidator The High Court reiterated that the assets of SSI Ltd., which was under liquidation, were in the custody of the Court under Section 456(2) of the Companies Act. The Official Liquidator was responsible for taking possession of these assets and safeguarding them. The CJM's order directing the Official Liquidator to hand over the assets to KE (P.) Ltd. was found to be beyond his jurisdiction and in violation of the High Court's orders. 5. Validity of the Search and Seizure Operations Conducted by the Police and PICUP The High Court addressed the legality of the search and seizure operations conducted by the police and PICUP. It was argued that the search was illegal due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the High Court held that even if the search was illegal, it did not necessarily invalidate the seizure of the machinery. The Court emphasized that the primary concern was the proper custody of the seized properties pending trial, rather than the legality of the search itself. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the criminal revisions, quashing the CJM's orders dated 20-12-1999 and 6-1-2000. It directed that the assets of SSI Ltd. should remain with the Official Liquidator, the assets of MRG (P.) Ltd. should be given to PICUP, and the remaining assets should be given to KE (P.) Ltd. for safekeeping, subject to the execution of a bond. The Court found that the CJM had exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to properly consider the complexities of the case and the prior orders of the High Court.
|
